021 289 863 6 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 






Public Educational Costs 



REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION 
by the 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

of 

THE CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE 



Copyright 1922 by 
The Chicago Association of Commerce 



©CI.A6 8fi3H9 



OCJ' 



ISIS2. 



^Vi.« I 



' ^ PREFACE 

The Chicago Association of Commerce is requested re- 
peatedly bo take position on questions of educational policy. 
Many of these requests relate to bills before the general assem- 
bly making appropriations for the financial support of educa- 
tional institutions. Some relate to city ordinances relating 
to the financial support of the city schools. These increases 
are often directly^ or indirectly competitive in the sense that 
the full allowance of all of the requests for financial support 
made at any one time would be beyond the possibilities. Some of 
the requests for endorsement relate to questions of policy apart 
from financial support. 

The Chicago Association of Commerce is in the habit 
of referring all such matters to its Committee on Education 
with the request that it report on them to the Executive Commit- 
tee, In order to make its reports on these matters when re- 
ferred to it of more value this committee has conducted an in- 
vestigation, the report of which is found in the following 
pages. The investigation has been financed by the Association. 
The committee consulted with President Harry Pratt Judson and 
Professor Charles H. Judd, director of the School of Education 
of the University of Chicago, and succeeded through them in 
securing Mr. N. B. Henry, a former teacher, high school princi- 
pal and superintendent of schopls in Missouri, and at present a 
research student doing post graduate work in the Department of 
Education of the University of Chicago. 



INTRODUCTION 

Recent years have been a season of great unrest in 
educational matters, though in this respect education does not 
differ radically from other social activities. 

There are those who question the advisability of pro- 
ceeding further with the development of opportunities for higher 
education. On the other hand there are those who advocate an 
extension of this field to a greater degree than in the past, 
claiming that our new world delations demand for us a better 
trained leadership. These say that the supremacy of our indus- 
trial institutions demands the aid of more technically trained 
men such as laboratory viforkers, chemists, bacteriologists, and 
engineers. We have generally assumed that the universality of 
a common school education wag a corner stone of our government. 
Yet from several widely separated quarters in recent years the 
advisability of discontinuing this policy of universal common 
school education has been questioned. 

On the other hand it is claimed that we have never 
needed an educated proletariat more than now, A permanently 
successful democracy necessitates an intelligent follow-ship. 

The advantages of education have always appealed to 
business men such as compose the membership of the Association 
of Commerce, Whether college graduates or not the majority of 
them have wanted their own sons to be college graduates. 

When it came to common school education the great major- 
ity of the membership endeavor to employ men of some education 
wherever possible. 

This opinion has been reflected in the willingness of 
business men to pay taxes to build schools, and to pay the 
expenses of the common schools, the colleges and the universities. 

But now the business man is rather generally opposing 
additional taxation. This opposition is showing more disposi- 
tion to crystalize into organized movements to resist increase 
of taxation than ever before. Some part of this disposition is 
extending to the field of support of education. This has gone 
as far at least as to make the business man desirous of knowing 
the present costs to government of education and also of learning 
the plans of the leaders of education in the common schools and 
of the higher schools of learning. 

The two factors which are most influential in contribu- 
ting to the steady increase in the cost of public education are 
the increasing numbers of eligible persons who are taking advant- 
age of the opportunities afforded for educational training, 
especially on the higher levels, and the constantly widening 
range of activities being undertaken by the schools. 

While the percentage of total population that was re- 
ported as of school age decreased from 29.6 in 1890, to 26.3 in 
1918, the percentage of those of school age ?;rho were enrolled in 
public schools increased from 68.6 to 75.3, Although the 
elementary schools have reached the stage where they are increas- 
ing in enrollment at a rate approximately equal to that of growth 
in total population, they are carrying an increasing proportion 
of the enrolled pupils into the higher grades. Reports of the 
United States Bureau of Education show that the percentage of 
elementary school pupils who were in the eighth grade increased 

J 



jfoiToaaoHTW] 



..:.■. ..^r,,.... ^....;,,,-, -.-■ aOQiSOS fc ;:_;,J -..•..;,,; ;;.....,, ,.,..;...; 

.a3ictivi::toe T ' '^ •■ ^ "(erf;*© moil xIlBoih'^^ •^'-■^'"' •-'■ 

as srtBciovbe oriw esorii ete eiiodi basd. tsricfo sflct «0 .notdBoubQ 

nod.l^cf e Ew to't bwemob snoictelsl bXww wsn i-wo ct/jr(:f gnirniaXo 

-ciubni tuo lo YOSfiisiquE 9rf;t dsrf;^ V,fi8 essriT .qirfciabeal beni^td 

benieicf ^(jixsoiminect atom lo bic aK.1 sbneraeb E5noit:^ij:licfBni lei'x^f 

bnf ,8c»siBO-foHo;*3Bd ,a:ts.tra9dD ,B-i9>fiow Y-£0;t3'jod'i5X as rfowe .asm 

lo vJilBBtsvtciiJ srfrf ^efid bemusBB v;Il6t9n9a s^e^ «^"t^' .atasnigna 

ntin^mnt-avog ti/o lo ono^a tarxioo a emv noi;Jo9iib9 Xooilo3 womaioa b 

Bd:t BiBii'i tiait^ot nt BtsiiBSjp bocJa-ssqaB ^leblvs Xsnsvae t-ioil ctoY 

rrommoD Issievinw lo v;9iXoq sirf;! sniwnliinooejtb lo Y^i^-fjt'-^stvbQ 

Xl^aonsanoq A ,won narii atow ^Bi'iBiBlotq beiBoabo «e bebaon 
.qi.ciB-woj.Xol insaiXXarfni "■ ,-•■::• ,--.- -oarjoornQb XwIbsc"—.'; 

o^ bQlesqqe 8\;evvXe ©vsrf in . .t ••■■.■;>.).„!'..• .c .;■:•-.* iiev be 9riT 
nordsi-Oi-'aA ;^rfd lo qiriBTtdcffftafn 9ri;J saoqmoo es rftvwa nam assnisx/of 
'." •■jf^olBtn ai-l;^ cfon tic aad'Qwbisig es?>XX6o rfsrfctarfV/ .©oismrtioO lo 
.aeo^swbe^g 95£>XXod 00* ocf anoa nwo fiedit bsdnew ©vsri morftf 

iotem rfeeia ©^^ noi^eaxjbo Xoorloa noniTioa o;* qcubo ^t nad^t 

.eXdtssoq isv9i0xfw 

lo aeongfiiXftw arfd' at tQi^&Ilst nsecf aerf noinlqo siriT 

ai-diBisvtm/ arfrf bne sogeXIoo Qrl:t ^aloocioa nomrttoo srlcf lo asanaqxa 

T^ttxaoqqo ^XXeiSitsg i^ii^s*! ei nem eaanif^jJd sriiT won isA 

-isoqsib siom gnttworfs ei ffoJt^Jisoqqo eiriT .noi::f.axs;f i;i u •■...;.,, ..x*r, 

aacQioni: i&te&s. cd BiJnemsvom bascftsQio cint BslZBiz'zto ocJ no25 

ex nor"': ■ . '-j airf^ lo cJi.fiq sinoS a'nolad lava aerfcJ aoi>"tBXB* lo 

©fto.13 .nolcteaubd lo i-toqqjJB lo bX©i:l arfcf o;;t gnibna^Jxo 

^ntyci.:. ..w- .u^oiiaab nsai ea^niswcf sdct o:k;ra oct ae de^aX is ibI &b 

SnimciiX lo oaX.e bne noi::#eoi;fo3 lo cfnemn'xevo^i orf atfaoo cfnaa^iq arfcf 

-•'- .'--..-..• ..-..-.... - .,.. . :---^aouba lo a'jabseX erU lo sneXq odi 

iniflieoX lo sXoorioa lori^irl srf;J lo 

-i/(fiitfrtoo ni leilnewXlni ctsom ©•se dotriw eto^ofil ow^J orlT 

010 noicteowba on:/iJq lo :Jeod erfd' ni sasoioni -^baoiJa erli oJ ,.!.ii.;.. 

-ctrtsvb.- qni:>ffii one oriw anoert^q ©fdJtstXs lo eiacfawn -jja/sisortoni 9rf;t 

,>xni:rii:f •^;J Xsnoi^faoubo lol babiolla esi^inwcfioqqo aric^ lo 039 

j^tti-^obK' v:XJtrfSv1ano9 orfcf bns ,sXev3X t3ff.-^i:rf arl"? no ^jXXsJcoeqsa 

r-XoorloR • '"^ ' n©3le^T[0bxtjj gffiecf eeiiJtviddfi "~ -•-'-t 

-■••J c. ■.. .:;;..>•: ' '• J.i-^JfO* lO ©gS^JnoOTJq 3fli sXfffW 

ni ^,92 od , 3 moil b3a'?9iD9'b o.gjs XoorfDC lo es badtoq 

ttt beXfotne ..3.:; Xoorf^e lo eaorfiJ lo oi^scfaeoioq orfJt ,axex 

'3rf:t rf^x, .^,eV oct d.ea moil bQBeatoett r.Xoorioa oiXdL*q 

-8:.5'53rti 016 ^•ti-.j — -^■- -':• biido&Qn avfirf eXcoiioe Y'^srfnamsXi/ 

idwix, lo c^erfcJ o;> oiqoe ©dst a do. ;*«f,"!X loins .ni.ani 

rtci^ir '---' — - ISO oifl ^oriS _ .-..^ 4- .- .■.—..•:. XsSb':*;n|- 

od:i ? .a' drfd crfni &L. (re.odiAo 

lo ..,. -vu: - > ;o .-^^j ....... .. km: noi^teawbS lo .u.... ■ .. ■■.,-., .-^t b^:ilnU 

b.^s.&Bionl 8bei3 rfcJrfjiJSo ©r£i ni 019W oriw eXiqwq Xoocloa ^iB:Jh9inoIo 



from 6,4 in 1911, to 7.5 in 1918, and that the percentage of 
eighth grade pupils of one year enrolling in high school the 
following year increased from 46,3 in 1912, to 57.8 in 1918. 
Professor Thorndike is authority for the estimate that the high 
schools are now annually receiving about one- third of the total 
population group reaching high school age, as compared with a 
ratio of one to ten in 1890. Figure 1 indicates the relative 
rate of growth of population and of the principal types of 
publicly supported schools between 1890 and 1918. 

The expansion of school curricula and other extensions 
of school activities are likewise proceeding rapidly. A recent 
report of the University of Minnesota shows the addition there 
of six distinct professional and technical departments since 
1890. A study of high schools in the North central states by 
Professor Stout of Northwestern University, summarizes the sub- 
jects offered in 65 high schools in each of the two periods, 
1906-11 and 1915-18. In the first period the schools studied 
were found to offer a total of 46 different courses, and the 
largest number offered by any one school was 6, In the second 
period the same number of high schools reported a total of 77 
four year courses, 25^ of the schools offering more than 6 sub- 
jects, and as many as 19 being offered by one school. A bulle- 
tin of the Chicago Board of Education Issued in January, 1921, 
lists 26 different activities that have been added to the Chicago 
school system since the beginning of the school year 1909-10. 

In consideration of facts such as these, and the re- 
lated financial problems they imply, the present study was under- 
taken at the request of the Committee on Education of The Chicago 
Association of Commerce, and has been carried on in co-operation 
with this committee and a special committee of their number 
appointed to consider questions relating to the scope and policy 
of the investigation. Meetings of the committee and of the sub- 
committee have been held from time to time during the period of 
the investigation for the purpose of considering the character 
of the material to be included in the report and the significance 
of the findings of the study. The resolution and detailed pro- 
gram for the study as adopted by the committee in May, 1921, is 
here presented; 

There is an annual increase in the proportion of the 
graduates of grammar school going into and going through high 
school. 

There is an annual increase in the number of graduates 
of high schools going into the universities and colleges and 
technical schools. 

The cost per unit of maintenance of elementary schools, 
high schools, universities, colleges and technical schools, is 
increasing annually. 

The tendencies show no indication that they will not 
continue for years. Therefore, it is suggested that the Asso- 
ciation of Commerce, through its Committee on Education, conduct 
an investigation to determine: 

1. The division of public funds between 
support of elementary schools, high 
schools, normal schools, universities, 
colleges and technical schools. 

2. The tendencies in such division as shown 
by the experiences of the past ten years. 



1o e^sjfnso'jeq srict ^flri* brre ^eIQX at c' IIx-I «i ^^,0 moil 

-v',:{ Ioo.r{D8 ff^M ni gnnioins is9ii anc quq sbeig nctri.vsii'? 

r^I rti a.fs o:t ,2K'X ni S.3:^ moil bseaoiDrjJt 163^ .^niwoffol 

ieaod -^rlct "io biirict-eao cfi/ode anivieooi y,£lRuas:is ivon ais aloorlos 

'T(> f^^rn/j rpqio.:., ..„ .,-.J 'io bne stoiiBlvqQq 'io ri^^v/o'^ta Ic ... .. * 
rex has oeex asewcr&d eXoorfoa b9itoqque ^£9ll(iuq, 

BcioLcmeixs -xaricto bns s£ui3t%tsjo Xoorfos lo noienaqx© 8riT 

6iarf:? noi::*r avvoxis GcfoeenniM lo ^cfj:B':f9VinU enM lo ctioqei 

softirs bShl... „.,„,., Xsoinrfaei bas XiPnoiaeeloiq ^^iirc^eib xie lo 

^cf es;j£*B XeiSnso rfjtioW orfcJ «i eXoon'se rfpjrf lo ^bwie A ,0981 

-cf0s ©ri:t Roairtsmmws ,v'*iei9vlnlT n'X9;ta9wddio'4 lo cfworfa lOBSQlCi'i 

.eboit^q ovi.-t ^licf lo rfri.o© ni eXood[93 rfglrl 56 cti beiello a;J39i, 

baJibu;Js eXoori^e OilcJ bcineq ctsiiil ©rfi nl .8X-eX5X bna Xl-dOvl 

'3cii bns ,e9stx;oD ittBt'i'l.litb 3f^ ^o Xe^toit a itsllo ocf bnwol siev* 

bnosQB 9f{,-J nl ,9 esw XoorioB erco \;0i5 -^cf botallo locfiown ctKagieX 

^V lo Xe;^oi a bediOQOi slcon'os rf;Qi£ii lo i.^dsnsjn ome?/ Off;t bofisq 

-ci'ws 6 n^if* eiorrf ,^^i^^llo sioorloB orict lo ^33 , eseiuoo ibo^ tual 

-oXXucf A .Xoorfoe 9no Y,<i bQtsllo grriecf eX siS YJiani se bne ,b;Joo(. 

,X2ex ^^leiJ-naL ni beyesX noi:*eDybS lo bisoH oV^eonfO ari^ lo nU 

ogsotffO &d^ oi bBbbB naacf overi 3G.(i:i ^.eiit-vUtsB cfne-sollib 32 B.laiX 

,0X-G06i isev: Xoorloe sflcJ lo gaiir- r-.-.« --r^ ..,,, cr. "..•+•:•.,. .-,..-:'>•.■ 

-91 erftf bn0 ,3agrid ge r(9UB e:^59l .:... ;>,, i,.; .. :t:-:_.i.,;.^...^ .;. 

-lebnif R6W ybyrfs cfneaaiq aritf ,MXqcfft \jar{d ameXdoiq Xsiionsnxl i^edaX 

ossoirfO 3riT lo noi-,1ooifb3 no eo:mmm.oO qA3 lo deo/ipsi siid' iB nejfsct 

noi:t£Tt3qo-oo ni no bstiiso naad sari bna ^soieraiGoO lo notisiooeBA 

lodtiurn ti-oill lo ©s^SifJiff?oo XaxDOge b bns aa;Jclirm«oo zidd dcJiw 

^oiXoq brts dqoos stl;? oi ani;S.eX3i enoictaei/p lebiaaoD oi bQtiatoqq& 

-cf;j8 3iid lo bfifi 09i?i:famoo eri^ lo a?5ni;.!^9aM ' ,aot^B-^tiB^vcit &ii:i lo 

lo boiioq 3A:i ^at'mb smtrf oct Qmli moil bXari fyeocf'aveil yddcfimmoa 

tacfos-xerfo ©rfrf ^niiebiemoa lo aaoqiwq isri^J tol rsoidsgiciaQvni; ©d;? 

sonsoiilxn^!:*: ^xfct bne cl-toqai arid nr bsbx/Xoni^ etf o;* Iei'io;fsffl srf^J lo 

-otq bolie'J^b brce noidifXo83i 9riT ,T^bt/3a erlrf lo aanibni:! exl;:^ lo 

8f ,X29X ♦^eM ni B^Htitrntoo erf^ (^d be^^qoba ae y,bu^?. &tii tol msig 



rigiri rf.^oTffrf '.^rtiog bne o.1nt ^nton, Xoodoa leramata lo ssctewbaig 

bciB eegfjXXoD brre Bsitfi-BTSVirfu srli orfni: g^io.n sXooriotj rlaiii lo 

,aXoorfou :........ .■..,j. .> .... >7,r,. .;,.::o,ii, : io cfiaw 'leq .• ••^.' -'a^ 

ai ,eXoorf33 XsoinrfoeiJ bns essoiXoo ^eai^tiei&vinij ,8Xoorl33 rigiri 

Y X X swnn " - '-< *■ '- '- -"^ •"* '^ ''• 

■ ■ - ....;.. ....-,. v;.-.:.. .,.;i0.o.jj. . .,a c-ii. ,;w/...,. c. ,./ o.iubaed o.... 

-oesA orlcf ied^ bodaoggys si ^i ,eiol8i9rIT ,b'is9\r lol awnxdnoo 

anivitrtedab oj> noi^JesJt^esvni: hb 

noawSacf 8bra;'l 3iX<iwq lo dotatvtb ©riT 

rigiri ,eXoor{08 Y'*6^^®^'2tf © lo i'koqquE 

,Beiii8T:9vtrijj ^aXoodoR XBf.rfon ,eXooi[i58 

.eXooxio^ f -'^ ' •' ''^7-'f b«s eeaoXX^ '."' 

nv/oiir, ec fxoi^'f■■'•^ ... , .oionebnei v/ 

etGoij ae;t *8r: •; e9on0itoqx9 aiii • 



5. The cost of education per capita in j 

the different types of educational \ 

institutions. i 

i 

4. How much of the expense is borne by ; 
the State and hovif much by the student. ! 

(a) In universities ■ 

(b) Technical schools i 

(c) Colleges \ 

(d) Normal schools \ 

(e) High schools ■ 

(f) Elementary schools 

Note - As to a, b, c, d, e, f , - ] 

the difference between fees paid I 

toy 1 

1. Residents { 

2« Non-residents : 

i 

5. Division of the cost of education as I 
between the State and the student in ■ 
Germany, England, Prance, and Canada. 1 

6. Division in some states comparable with j 
Illinois. : 

7. What limit is practicable in devoting i 
a fixed proportion of income to: j 

i 

(a) Instruction in classical sub- ; 
jects; in technical subjects j 

(b) Property accounts 

(c) Maintenance 






.inebis:iB sr: fOt wort bnfi 9*^' 

i.IoOrfOB lo o) 

GXoorfE>8 rJ^iH. (a) 












^ 



\\ 

\ \ 
\ 



\ 



\ 

V 

\ 

li \ 



o 

O 



\ 



Q 

M 
(OH- 

oo 

I 



\ 



\ 



cop, 
t-J 

CDCQ 
• O 

g' 

o 
t-' 

cp 

■^ 
o 

s 

CD 



t?a 



o 




3 


I 


(1) 




3 




<:+ 


•t) 


P 


o 


11 


Tl 


«< 


j:: 




i-» 


03 


P 


o 


c+ 


t^- 


H- 


o 


O 


o 


3 


!-• 




ca 





< 

H- 

e+ 

© 

(0 

I 

o 
o 



CO 

o 

o 
o 



CQ 



o 

o 



c 
c 



•-< 

tr 
C 
fcr- 

•-< 
«< '•^ 

c 
I 






5 > 






I-l 

SECTION I 

The Distribution of Public Funds in 
Support of Different Types of Schools 

It Is recognized that the several types of educational 
institutions included among those receiving public support do not 
constitute a unit-system, and that aggregate or unit costs ^ are 
not in themselves significant m.easures of the extent to vvhich the 
several types of schools are adequately supported. The great 
majority of public higher institutions are under state control 
and derive their principal support from legislative appropriations 
and specific assessment upon the resources of the state as a 
v/hole. Elementary and high schools are largely under the con- 
trol of lesser political units and receive approximately 80 per 
cent, of their revenue from local taxation. Moreover, the 
schools of different type and grade are designed and equipped to 
accommodate different population groups and to provide different 
types of training. The analysis here presented is therefore 
not interpreted as indicating that one phase of publicly support- 
ed education is more costly than it should be, or that any other 
phase is not adequately provided for. It is hoped, however, 
that the facts determined may provide a somewhat more definite 
basis than has heretofore obtained for the consideration of ques- 
tions constantly arising in connection with the increasing demands 
upon the Dublic purse made by the principal types of publicly 
supported schools. Prom this point of view it is appropriate to 
consider together the proportion of public funds going to the 
different levels of the common school system, comprising the 
public elementary and high schools, and the distribution of such 
funds among different types of higher institutions. 

So far as the division of funds between the common 
schools and institutions of higher learning is concerned, the 
problem is simplified by the separate accounting naturally re- 
sulting from the fact that these are almost entirely under dif- 
ferent units of control. There are a few municipal colleges or 
universities and a number of city normal schools deriving their 
support from the same taxation unit and being under the same 
administrative management as the public schools of the cities 
supporting them, but they are usually maintained by separate 
funds and their expenditures are separately reported. 

There is, however, no such distinct differentiation in 
accounting for the expenditures involved in carrying on the work 
of the elementary and that of the high school grades of the common 
school system, nor in indicating the relative cost of academic 
and other types of training on the college level. It is there- 
fore necessary to estimate such division on the basis of data 
supplied by either the individual schools or by agencies engaged 
in assembling facts concerning these schools, such as the state 
departments of education or the United States Bureau of Education. 

For the purposes of a general survey of the school 
systems of the various states, the data included in the statis- 
tical reports of the United States Bureau of Education are the 
most serviceable. As regards the state common school systems, 
these reports are based upon information supplied by the state 
superintendent of public instruction or other principal school 
officer for the state reporting. In view of the fact that the 
state officers exercise a measure of control in the matter of 
recording and reporting school statistics, and since the reports 
to the Bureau of Education are made on uniform blanks by persons 



I T'lOiToag 
•i BbmfZ otldtfi 1o noi:tycfti*8i 

i.^!.oK-tG9x;f)S lo Bsq^^ Xsiev- 

v-foa Ob :^ioqi7ifr otlduq gntvisodi &aoiiJ giiome oeujjioju anocasjd cjaui 

3-T~ -iiro') •f.'''"j to 9^ic?3©rf.'nnr rfrri.:f i>ns .mecfs^e-cJ tiiw 3 yiti/ditfefiOo 

£'- ' -re orfi lo ^neoilingie cevIeBm.arlct ni cton 

'.rftoqqjje \i . jb ©Tre aXoorioe Jo aeq^cf Isiovee 

lOiJi-oa jdiiCie •iQbctu ate aauiswdictsfii tsrigtrC DiXdijq lo y^^'^^I.^'" 

^acirfeftqoiqqa avirfBlsJrasX moil i'loqqifE iBqionitq tiierfrf svrtob ona 

n E-? 3;»e::f8 9rfrf lo eeoiuonet 'srli noqi; c^nomaBsaes oill3.;)q8 bnja 

-rtoo SiLi tobrxif ^lagteX bib aXoorloa si'std .bns ^tiscfnscislcl ."sXodv; 

tsq 08 yXad-omrxonqqe ©viooet bnB Bitcm iBotdtloq toesaX lo Xotd 

©rfiJ ,ts»vo3toM .noi;Jaxe:i XsooX motl ei/nevat tiorli^ lo .rfnso 

Qi bsoqxwpo bns b&agreob ate sjbota bne eqvjrf cJnotellit) lo eXocxioB 

inetoll ib &bivotq oif fins aqfiota aoh^Bluqoq dnetellifo ecfisbonmiooos 

OTOlotarfS 3i faocfnaaoiq 019x1 eXSYXfinfi sriT .sninxotct lo ssqyJ* 

-;JtO(-;qij? YXoiXo'/w Jo osexfq ono cterfct anJtctaoibnX bs bsd'Stqioinl: ;Jofi 

t9;ido ^jn? dfi/l:t to , 9Cf ftXiJOris SI nsrfd ^jXcfeoo atom ai noiieowba 5© 

,'i3vewo£f ,b9qo.ri: ef il ,iol bebivota YX^^Sifpabs don si ssarfq 

'Jdfnllafo 9ton ctHriwsfnos a abivotq y^Bm foanimtsdsb edofil e-rf* isd^ 

-?9f'r lo .r!?.^1r;t3b.t8noo arfct tol bon^eido stolorfetori scrl nsirf eised 

•;)nf s/ict d:tiw noi:Soennoo at ^nlsita \;I;^nsc}erxoo enoirf 

•> BdcivJ Xsqtonitq orfd ^cf ebera aatuq oiXcfuq arf^ noqw 

cj '-J.-vric:Oi .;.;5£j et ^t v/oiv lo cJnJEoa slrfcf mot'< .aXoorfos borftoqqirs 

£.a;i o::t fl-'uoi^ Bbnwl olXcfwq lo noidtoqotq orfd toA'd'Ssocf tobisaoo 

Slid rjnieitqmoD ,ra9d8^;s Xoorfoa nommoo srid lo aXoveX cfrcotellib 

xfDi/B lo noldwcfitdaib arid bne (eXoodoe rigirl bns ^tsdn9frf3.''n oj.r-!.rf-r 

.^^aoicfjjrfi^eni: terfsi-ri lo aeq^rf dnoielllb gf 

nofnaioo arid neswdacf abnwl lo noietvib erld 3fi t^'*^ 

erld ,b9nt3onoo ei s^^i^i^t^Qi nsrlgtd lo ertoidjJdidB' 

-9t ^XXBii/^an Snidfti/oooe sdetsqaa arid ^d b&tlr r moXooiq 

-l.^b '^''•bnii v;X3tidne daomXs a'je saarid darfd dosl :il anxrfXi/s 

"f- 5 iBqioictum wol s eta sterlT .Xotdnoo io odinw dne-xsl 

"' Jviteb aXoorioe Xsmtoa ^^io ^o ledmwn e fons asidxetevtn.a 

3i»-ia wild tobnxf grti^q bna dinw noidsxed srase edd mot! dtoaqj^a 

Bsidjto arid lo eXborfoe oXXdirq arid ae dfiewroaansin evjCdQtdexni.-nba 

eiatnaofi vd bsniadniem ^jXXaway sie ^jerid dwri ^irorid ynidtooqwa 

.fo^dto-r-,-"! Tyrsd-tc-ts?: 3t." rr-ir.'d ^Fi^r^r■r^ ^Jion'd bna sbax/l 

tit f/ordaidae.v .a.IT 

iftow Qrfd no AiHi .^;i-icf> iix Dwvlovni eoiijdrbuoaxw erij tol gnxdawo^os 

orrfrrroft erfd lo Bsbsti^ XoorioE rijjirf 9rid lo derid bna T^tednemeXa erfd lo 

lo deoo svidaX&t ^di anidaoifoni at ton ^made^a Xoorfoa 

^I . IsvsX 9S6lXoo 9rid no i^fffrriatd lo eeq^d lerido bne 

'^fd^ no noiaivib rfoi/s ed^fnidee od \fta8a9oe)n atol 

'^^' v:cf to eXoorioa leubtvlbnt orid teridjca ^J b \tr--qi/E 

£■: aji;a ,aXoori3B eearid Tsniat^onoo edDcl grri • li 

usoxwa aedRdS bed inTJ o-f.-' to c:':\icnv'-j'3 lo r: ^ .:'b 

XoorioB erid lo '^avti/e Xetsneg a 

-sidada arid nt bobs^itont o&Bb f:)iii ,8ivdodB d^/Oiinv e-iid lo aoi9da\js 

add ote rrnMR'^i'b'^r lo uRotw? aDdfide bodiaU arid lo pdtcet r-toid 

- -Tioo edads arid -r^^to^et aA .aXcl ■ cm 

;xfR noJrdsratolni cfoqx; bsae'-^ ^"'a :'!d 

, rorido to noJtdowtdani otldy ^a 

'i tfl vi;dJtv nl ..^nidtoqat e . io 

■ '• 'Jjr'.-j:.' j:ij nJt xotdfiOD lo Q'wr.oom a enioto'^^ia siooiilo lidada 

cdtoqst 9rfd aoajta b«fi ,3'>idp!-dpdf! foorioe n^r / •♦"jo^-r'^f iSrr? T^pfibtooe^t 

anoataq ^{d BiTffeXd sa*tQ%l' 



1-2 

familiar with the systems for which they are reporting, it is 
believed that the returns so assembled are better adapted to the 
purposes of this study than the separate reports of the state 
departments, were these readily available. 

Separate studies of public high schools, city school 
systems, normal schools, and state colleges and universities are 
also made by the Bureau, the facts assembled being reported 
directly to the Bureau by some officer of the system or institu- 
tion concerned. These reports suffer the disadvantage of being 
incomplete from, year to year since the Bureau has no authority 
to require that reports be made. Also, they are subject to the 
errors common to all reports which involve interpretation as 
well as the recording and reporting of facts by a number of dif- 
ferent Individuals. 

So far as the common schools are concerned the specific 
problem of this study is that of determining the division of 
public funds between the schools of elementary and of high school 
grade. While certain summaries regarding expenditures for 
state school systems in 1920, have been announced by the Bureau 
of Education, the latest available detailed report is for the 
school year ending June 30, 1918. Although the totals repre- 
senting expenditures for different educational activities in 
1918, will doubtless be somewhat at variance from, corresponding 
figures for later years, the procedure in determining the dis- 
tributions here reported can be indicated only by reference to 
the detailed reports, hence the material included in the present 
section relates to educational expenditures in 1918, for the 
several types of schools considered. Similar results for 1920, 
are included in the tables presented in Section II. 

There is in general no separate accounting of expendi- 
tures for all phases of the administration of the elementary as 
distinguished from the high school grades of the common school 
system. In many city school systems and in a few state systems 
the effort is made to classify expenditures insofar as these m.ay 
be allocated to the two units separately. But in school organi- 
zations comprising both elementary and high school units economy 
itself requires that certain functions of administration be per- 
formed for both by a single agency, so that an absolutely separ- 
ate accounting exists only where the two units are under separate 
control. To determine with any degree of accuracy the relative 
cost of high and of elementary schools for even those states that 
distinguish as far as possible between these expenditures involves 
the assumption of some reasonably valid basis of apportionment 
of the undistributed items of expense within these systems. A 
fairly reliable estimate for the country as a whole may thus be 
derived from reports of a representative group of states. 

In Bulletin of the Bureau of Education, No. 19, 1920, 
it is noted {p. 73) that the reports for the common school systems 
of Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, 
Louisiana, Maine, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia present for 
1918, a reasonably reliable separation of expenditures between 
elementary and high schools for all the principal functions of 
expense excepting general control ( overhead) , and interest on 
indebtedness*. It is also noted that these nine systems enrolled 
in that year approximately 10 per cent, of all the pupils in the 
public schools of the country, and expended an amount slightly 
above 10 per cent, of the total expenditures of all state systems, 
The average length of the school term is shown to be exactly the 
same as that for the United States as a vifhole. Apparently these 
systems constitute a reliable sample of the entire group, and 
estimates based upon their reports may be regarded as reasonably 
representative of similar items in general. 



:> oi Bbsm ex ^tio*:. 






• 3 S 



nolir .-SSI c ^eIQl 



1-3 

Assuming that the expenditures by these nine systems 
for general control and interest on indebtedness, am.ounting to a 
little more than 4 per cent, of their total expenditures, may be 
divided between elementary and high school costs on a per pupil 
basis, it is found that the cost of high school education per 
pupil enrolled was |84.49. The number of pupils enrolled in the 
high schools of all the states in 1918, was 1,933,821. On this 
basis, the total cost of high schools in the United States for 
that year was #163,388, 536, representing a little more than 21 
per cent, of the cost of all state common school systems, report- 
ed as $763,678,089. 

In view of the close organic relationship between 
elementary and high schools it is obvious that certain items of 
school expense are much more readily classified as charges against 
elementary or high school administration within a given system 
than are other items. Especially is this true in the case of 
the large number of village school systems in virhich elementary 
and high school grades are housed in a single building. Of the 
principal classes of expenditures, the cost of instruction, in- 
cluding the items of teachers' salaries, supervision, materials 
employed in class room, v/ork, etc., is most readily divided be- 
tween the higher and lower grades. 

Inspection of reports of a number of different school 
systems indicates that there is a somewhat definite relationship 
existing betv/een instruction costs and total costs for elementary 
and high school units. The following analysis of such expendi- 
tures in the nine state systems referred to shov\fs the definite- 
ness of this relationship where a number of schools are considered. 

The total expenditures in the 9 states in 1918, amount- 
ed to $76,940,194. Of this amount, $3,165,741 was expended for 
general control and interest payments, leaving $73,774,453 which 
could be distributed between elementary and high schools. As 
thus distributed, the amount spent for elementary schools v;as 
$53,938,435. Since 88.2 per cent, of all pupils were enrolled 
in the elementary schools, this percentage of the undistributed 
costs is to be added to the distributed elementary school costs, 
giving a total cost of elementary schools of $56,730,618. This 
represents 74.08 per cent, of the total expenditures for both 
elementary and high schools. The total cost of the item of in- 
struction was $48,181,684. The cost of instruction in the ele- 
mentary schools alone was $35,714,450, virhich is 74.10 per cent, 
of the total amount expended for this item. Thus it is seen that 
total costs divide themselves between elementary and high schools 
in approximately the same ratio as the expenditures for the 
single item of instruction. 

Assuming that the same relationship holds for state 
school systems in general, such division for the United States as 
a whole may be determined by a similar analysis of instruction 
costs in the two types of schools. Thus, it is found that 78.6 
per cent, of such costs was devoted to elementary schools. On 
this basis it Is computed that the total cost of elementary 
schools in 1918 was $600,250,978, the cost of high schools being 
thus determined as $163,427,111. It will be recalled that the 
total cost of high schools as determined by a per pupil cost 
estimate was $163,388,536. Since the two methods give approxi- 
mately the same result, it is believed that the amounts stated 
represent a reasonably accurate estimate of the division of funds 
between elem.entary and high schools for the United States as a 
Tifhole, 



1-4 

Determining the division of funds among the different 
types of institutions above high school grade involves the defi- 
nition or classification of the institutions considered in terms 
of the curricula they maintain. The principal classes of higher 
schools supported by state or other public funds are the univer-^ 
sities, agricultural and mechanical colleges, and normal schools. 
There are in addition a relatively small number of special schools, 
such as the New York State Library School, Virginia Military 
Academy, Lowell, (Mass.) Textile School, Mississippi College for 
Women, and Virginia Medical College. Among the normal schools, 
Uw types are found, Txiose virhose curricula include four year s 
work above high school gi^ade, and those offering from one to three 
years of advanced work. Some of those included in the former 
group have come to be recognized as schools of college rank, and 
are now usually termed teachers' colleges. For the purposes of 
the present classification these teachers' colleges are included 
with the college group, other normal schools constituting a 
separate division. 

The distinction between universities and technical 
schools is rather clearly drawn so far as separate institutions 
are concerned. Of forty-six universities receiving a large 
measure of public support in 1918, thirty-eight are institutions 
established as state universities, two, Miami University and Ohio 
University, are separate state institutions including colleges 
of education; one, Cornell, is a private institution receiving 
appropriations from the state and the federal government; another, 
Howard University, Is maintained by the federal government for 
colored students, and five are municipal universities. The 
largest single group of institutions which are clearly technical 
schools are the agricultural and mechanical colleges originally ^ 
endowed by federal land grants and supported in part by appropria- 
tions authorized by Congress. Some of these land grant colleges 
are incorporated with the state universities, thereby falling 
v/ithin the university group. Up to 1905, the reports of the^ 
United States Commissioner of Education included a separate list 
of technological schools. As a basis of classification of the 
institutions included in the 1918 reports, this list as presented 
in the report for 1905, was used. 

Inasmuch as this study is concerned with the distribu- 
tion of public funds among the different types of institutions 
receiving such support, all institutions not under public control 
but supported in part by appropriations from public funds were 
classified on the basis of the amount of public money received. 
It was found that a number of institutions receive contributions 
from public sources, and that the aggregate amount is considerable. 
However, the list includes a great many independent colleges re- 
ceiving only small contributions of this type. Reference to 
earlier reports -showed that these contributions vary in amount 
from year to year and in many Instances are not made regularly. 
Except for a small percentage of the total, the public funds 
contributed to privately controlled institutions go to a relative- 
ly small number of schools. It was therefore decided to include 
with publicly controlled institutions those private institutions 
which in 1918 received from public sources as much as 20 per cent, 
of their income exclusive of funds for increase of permanent en- 
dowment and receipts from fees for non- educational services. This 
list included St.' John's College and ¥/ashington College in Mary- 
land, Jefferson Medical College in Pennsylvania, Milligan College 
in Tennessee, and Mlddlebury College in Vermont, classified as 
colleges; Worcester (Mass.) Polytechnic Institute; and four 
universities, Norwich University of Vermont, The University of 
Pittsburg, the University of Pennsylvania, and Temple University 
i::. P.iilauelo-Ji. . 



. J (JiiO 



' ^ \'f^ b •fJ.f /■ 5 ^ if '': 



'to 



ife ,ct' 



1-5 



The list of schools as finally classified as a basis for deter- 
mining the division of funds between the three types is here 
shown. The normal schools are not listed for the reason that 
they are clearly distinguished from schools included in the other 
groups , 

CLASSIFIED LIST OP COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, and TECHNICAL S CHOOLS 



UNIVERSITIES 

University of Alabama 
University of Arizona 
University of Arkansas 
University of California 
University of Colorado 
Howard University 
University of Florida 
University of Georgia 
University of Idaho 
University of Illinois 
University of Indiana 
State University of Iowa 
University of Kansas 
University of Kentucky 
Louisiana State University 
University of Maine 
University of Michigan 
University of Minnesota 
University of Missouri 
University of Montana 
University of Nebraska 
University of Nebraska 
University of New Mexico 
Cornell 

University of North Carolina 
University of North Dakota 
Ohio University 
Miami University 
Ohio State University 
University of Oklahoma 
University of Oregon 
University of South Carolina 
University of South Dakota 
University of Tennessee 
University of Texas 
University of Utah 
University of Vermont 
University of Virginia 
University of Washington 
West Virginia University 
University of Wisconsin 
University of Vi/yoraing 
Temple University 
University of Pennsylvania 
University of Pittsburgh 
Norwich University 
University of Louisville 
University of Akron 
University of Cincinnati 
Toledo University 



(a) Nov/ the University 
of Maryland 



TECHNICAL SCHOOLS 

Alabama Polytechnic Institute 

Alabama Girl's Technical Inst. 

Colorado Agricultural College 

Colorado School of Mines 

Connecticut Agricultural College 

Delaware College 

Georgia School of Technology 

North Georgia Agricultural College 

Idaho Technical Institute 

Purdue 

Iowa State College of Agriculture 

and Mechanic Arts 
Kansas State Agricultural College 
United States Naval Academy 
Maryland State College of Agri- 
culture (a) 
Massachusetts Agricultural College 
Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 
nology 
Lowell Textile School 
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 
Michigan Agricultural College 
Michigan College of Mines 
Mississippi Agricultural and Mechan- 
ical College 
Montana State College of Agricul- 
ture and Mechanic Arts 
Montana School of Mines 
New Hampshire College of Agricul- 
ture and Mechanic Arts 
Rutgers 

New Mexico School of Mines 
New Mexico College of Agriculture 

and Mechanic Arts 
New York State College of Forestry 
North Carolina College of Agricul- 
ture and Engineering 
North Dakota Agricultural College 
Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechani- 
cal College 
Oregon Agricultural College 
Pennsylvania State College 
Rhode Island State College 
Military College of South Carolina 
South Dakota State College of Agri- 
culture and Mechanic Arts 
Agricultural and Mechanical College 

of Texas 
Texas College of Industrial Arts 
Agricultural College of Utah 
United States Military Academy 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
Virginia Military Institute 
Washington State College 









'3:^/- 



-.i ."i .,. 



'JJOO -^O TBI J 



TOOHDP TAO. 



S3:.T'rT3??:7V].i-. 



■T ;i i li'-:i r,i",7:2d>.vlrt 



"'BO A liiVi?^! 



9i:niol:iXaO 

obc^oXoO 

. t .f*? "^o v;( r!S*f^v ff;^ 



;.i "^ :-5 \r f f<T! 9 ^ ,-; i ''•; an a j- h i i ;<-, 



J•:tl;J^c^r!!i;T 





















;:.SW TtO 



■.S^jXIoO 



-■'loO \'ia.j i.LtU 



to Y^iBiJ^iaU 






n' 



-wJ^^uiri;. 



1-6 



COLLEGES 



Colorado State Teachers' College Oklahoma College for Women 

Florida State College for Women St. John's College 

lov/a State Teachers' College Washington College 

Mississippi College for Women Jefferson Medical College 
Neiv York State College for Teachers Virginia Medical College 

College of the City of New York College of William and Mary 

Hunter College of the City of Milligan College 

Nev/ York College of Charleston 

New York State Library School Middlebury College 

On the basis of this classification it was found that 
of the total amount of public money contributed to these schools 
in 1918, about 45 per cent, went to universities, 27 per cent, to 
technical schools, 24 per cent, to normal schools, and somewhat 
less than 4 per cent, to the colleges. 

If the distribution of public funds among these types 
of schools is considered from, the point of view of providing for 
or extending the educational opportunities afforded by the state 
or the nation, it is doubtful whether the aggregate of income de- 
rived from public sources alone is the best measure of the service 
rendered by such distribution. 

For example, the aggregate of funds derived by univer- 
sities in 1918, from state or federal appropriations and from sub- 
sidies provided by cities from their revenue receipts was thirty 
million dollars. The total income of the same institutions, ex- 
cluding receipts for increase of endowment and those from fees for 
non- educational services, as board and room rent, was forty- three 
million. It is clear that the thirteen million dollars which 
these universities derived from fees, productive funds, earnings, 
etc., would provide but meagre facilities for work of university 
grade in 48 separate institutions. Eut if such amount is dis- 
tributed among these institutions after the necessary costs of 
operation and instruction are largely provided for by appropria- 
tions from public funds, the opportunities for advanced study which 
these institutions can offer will be materially increased. It 
is obvious, moreover, that the portion of the income of higher 
institutions which is derived from fees, earnings, etc., is largely 
the result of the fact that the principal funds required for their 
maintenance have been provided for. That is, the minor receipts 
are in a measure attracted to these institutions by the funds they 
receive from public sources. For this reason it is believed that 
the total income from the sources specified is the more significant 
index of the distribution of public support among the types of 
schools considered. It may be noted also that the percentage of 
funds available for each group of schools is only slightly differ- 
ent from the percentage distribution of public funds among the 
groups. These percentages are shown in Table I. 

A further classification may be made of universities 
and technical schools on the basis of the number of students en- 
rolled in technical courses. When the institutions reporting at 
least 50 per cent, of all regularly enrolled students in techni- 
cal courses are placed in one group, it is found that changes 
occur in the classification of only eight schools, and that the 
total income of the schools included in this group differs from. 
the total reported for the original technical group by only about 
5 per cent. 



a-".: 



saoajjoo 












oorioS v'^'S-r 



darlweraoe bae ,8iO' 



nines YQ^Of^f otiduq lo ctmj-orao Xecfoct oiW lo 
■•■JVirf;; oct tfrtew .dneo iscy -^i- :!L-.;>Jfi ,8X0!" /-fi 



SO 



10 1 



Ivoiq lo vi3lv to ;trtxoq 9rl;* mcsl baisbf-saoD si Bloorfos lo 

"f XrS bC'bT'^tB ."•r. f :?•,-;., ,;t. TO oqo XenoictCDufos oriS -gaibneiKQ io 
t lo &•* iw Ij/l:^d0ob si: :ti: ,noi:^sn 9r[;J lo 



sol (Tfoil seoiij 



ife/iBiirf 


10 


. ;"fSl ai . 




71 0'-^:} "iCT . 





•t . 



T lo ijcreasisafl ^rf^J »9Xqin/?x8 lo'' 

•> JTioil soi;- obivonq se 
■^ni: Xe;torf ....:: ./uTr.:.. .-i;;. : 
HB&Qnonl lol e 
. ^.od ae ,880i:v't9a i 

-^- ,q ,3991 morel b^vtieb eetitBtevltw ■^. -- 

<3virtsj lo jiiow lol eexiJiXio^l aiasom ^ucf ebivorrq bXwow ^.ocra 

-.c icmomB rfox/s 1£ ctJuS .P(Toi:f«di:»gni o^BiBq^B 8^ nt ©bsntg 

00 virteeasoan 'Srfct le^ls j:-.noi:djj:Jxrfarfi: aasrfcf gnoins .boiti/cfiii' 

'--)■ -lo'^ bsbivo'iq ^jX&.niisX a-^a .toi'^tDiJi^itani bna noictB't9qo 

'Ol G3iitms:i'f.oqqo &di ,Gbnwl otlduq :^to^l anoxct 

:"-;■-)■*'■■'- -v'.f xXiw isllo nsa saoi^isjicisai eaed^ 

tioq Qdi cfsrfiJ ,t©vos^ojn , awoivcfo ^t 

. .^ ,_- . rcoil bsviteb ei rfoiriw Enoirfjjcf i^arri 

«i/l Xjoqigniiq Qdi rferfrf ;tocl 3ri:t lo iluedi arict 

' ! .:;-''^i' -^'■>l fjebivoTcq «ye^ ^^r,,.- -.-..Tfo .H'Y^^^n 

i ocf beiiofltiJrf 

' ...-■.. . ^.^ ^ .eaoiifoe s' ... .. v,...^;i 

■cm il 



jbrawl oiXc 



Xcrfocf srlrf 
,.!.•* lo xobni 
oxanoo aXoorfoc 
•■-fiisva sbrtwl 
':i raoil ?ne 



loorioB itri; 
.'013 ax fief iij. 



xrfcJ^ no sXoorfoa Xeoxnr 

— .a©3iwoo iBoinno^i ax .■.....■. 

X-ieXi/gsi XX/s lo ^inso -xsq oe da-'si 

••■ -:i sno ni bsocXq eiB assiiifoo Xso 

lo noldaoiliaasXo a/ii nX rt^J/ooo 

.. ioni aXoorfoa en-' i--' -r -i^r Xeitocf 



IS Xeolrtxioed- XenxaXio sricf lol 



oct ©ri;t 



1-7 



Table I. Distribution of total funds and funds 
derived from public sources among dif- 
ferent types of schools, 1918. (a) 

(Totals in millions of dollars.) 

income income from public sources 



Elementary schools 
High Schools 
Universities 
Technological schools 
Normal schools 
Colleges 

Totals 



to^-al 


per-cent 


total 




per-cent 


600 


70.54 


536 




71.62 


163 


19.11 


146 




19.51 


45 


5.04 


30 




4.01 


25 


2.69 


is 




2.40 


21 


2,46 


16 




2.14 


3 


.35 


2. 


4 


.52 


855 




748. 


4 





Siiramarlzing the findings for the two classes of schools 
considered, the state common school systems and publicly supported 
higher institutions, it is found that a total of 855 million dol- 
lars was expended in 1913 in support of educational training of 
the types specified. Of this amount, approximately 90 per cent. 
viras expended in support of elementary and high schools. Of the 
total thus expended, 765 million dollars, 21.4 per cent, went to 
the support of high schools. Universities and technical schools 
reported a total income of 66 million dollars, 48 million being 
derived from public sources. The public funds were divided be- 
tween the two classes of schools in the ratio of 5 to 5, the uni- 
versities receiving the larger portion. The normal schools com* 
prise the largest group of higher institutions and reported a total 
income only about 10 per cent, less than that of the technical 
schools. The colleges comprise the smallest group and their ex* 
penditures amounted to only about one- third of one per cent, of 
the total reported for the six types of schools considered. T-^.ble 
I shows the amount and the percentage of the total which was em- 
ployed in maintaining each of these six classes Of schodls. The 
following section will indicate the manner in which these distri- 
butions have varied during the period from 19i0 to 1980. 



(a) Prom data of Bureau of Education Bulletins 
and Nos. 11, 19, and 54, 1920. 



No. 81, 1919, 



II- 1 

SECTION II. 

Tendencies in the Distribution of Funds Among 
Different Types of Schools from 1910 to 1920. 

In undertaking to determine the proportionate amounts of 
money expended from year to year by the several classes of schools 
supported by public funds, the limitations of the reports upon 
vv'hich estimates may be taa -ed must be taken into account. Except 
for the year 1912, the only data assembled by the Bureau of Educa- 
tion concerning high schools alone prior to 1918 were, included 
in reports made directly by officers of these institutions or of 
the local school systems to which they belonged. That is, there 
were no separate high school reports returned by state school 
officers. Since the Bureau cannot demand reports of persons In 
charge of high schools, the statistics prior to 1918 are not com- 
plete for any given year except 1912, when reports were received 
from state departments. Thus it is certain that the total enroll- 
ment in public high schools in each of the other earlier years was 
somewhat In excess of the figure reported by the Bureau. 

As regards expenditures, there was no attempt in these 
earlier years to secure classified statements for all high schools 
for the reason that accounts were not so kept for the majority of 
such schools. However, a statement of the amount of money avail- 
able for meeting the expenses of high school training was requested 
each year from thes"e school systems that were prepared to make 
such reports. These reports were examined in connection with other 
data concerning the same systems, and those reports comiiig from, 
systems In vifhich the high school items were clearly distinguished 
were considered separately. On the basis of these returns, the 
cost per pupil erjr'olled in this group of high schools was deter- 
mined. Since the number and distribution of such schools usually 
appeared to make the group fairly representative of high schools 
in general, it was assumed that this per pupil cost multiplied by 
the number of pupils in all high schools gave a reasonably reliable 
estimate of the total cost of maintaining all high schools. Except 
for the fact that the enrollment figure reported was certainly less 
than the actual total, the estimate was probably as accurate as 
could be made from any available Information for those years 4 

It happens that in 1918 ■ returns were made for high 
schools both by officers in charge of individual schools and by 
state school officers. The total high school enrollment shown 
by- the individual reports was 1,645,171, while the state reports 
showed an enrollment of 1,933,821. The actual enrollment for this 
year is thus found to be 1,175 times the number enrolled in the 
schools for vi/hich reports were made directly to the Bureau. 

While it is not possible to determine the exact amount 
of discrepancy in these reports concerning high school enrollment 
for the years prior to 1918, it is probable that the high schools 
reporting from year to year constituted a fairly constant percent- 
age of the total number in operation. It seems, therefore, that 
the most reliable estimate of the total high school enrollment 
which can be made for these years is to be found by multiplying the 
reported enrollment for each year by the constant 1.175. The 
estimated total cost of high schools as shown in Table II for the 
years 1910, 1914, and 1916, was determined for each year by multi- 
plying this corrected enrollment figure by the per pupil cost 
calculated for those schools submitting adequate reports. In the 
case of 1912, the enrollment reported by the state departments was 



q jTon 






II-2 



used. The cost of elementary schools for each of these years 
is found by deducting the computed cost of high schools from the 
total cost of common school systems as shown by the state reports 



The total cost of common scho 
$1,036,151,209. An examination of the 
1920 reports (now in press) was made at 
of Education, but no adequate basis of 
total between elementary and high schoo 
In the report relating to high schools 
the cost per pupil in high school was 2 
elementary school pupil. (a) In the 
sumed that this ratio obtained in 1920 
of common schools is divided between el 
on this basis. 



ols in 1920 was 
detailed tables of the 
the office of the Bureau 
opportionment of this 
Is is shown for that year, 
in 1918, it is shown that 
,67 times the cost per 
present study it is as- 
also, and the total cost 
ementary and high schools 



In determining the distribution of funds among the 
higher institutions receiving public support, the classification 
shown in Section I is followed, and the total income as there de- 
fined is considered rather than income from public sources alone. 
The list of schools is changed, however, by the omission of the 
ten schools not principally supported by public funds, but in- 
cluded as a means of securing a more complete accounting of the 
distribution of such funds for the year 1918. These schools are 
St. John's College, Washington College, Worcester Polytechnic 
Institute, University of Pittsburg^ Jefferson Medical College, 
Temple University, University of Pennsylvania, Milligan College, 
Middlebury College, and Norvjich University; also several normal 
schools had become teachers' colleges by 1920, thus transferring 
to the college group. On the basis of this classification the 
aggregate income of the institutions selected was distributed in 
alternate years from 1910 to 1920, as shown in Table II, which 
includes similar data for elementary and high schools. The rela- 
tive rates of Increase for all except the college and normal 
school groups, v^rhich are affected by the reclassification of 
teachers' colleges, are shown in Figure 2, 

Table II, Distribution of funds among different types 
of schools, 1910 - 1920 

Expenditures in millions of dollars 

1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 



Elementary 




-~ 










■ 










Schools 




375 




419 




473 




539 


600 




795 


High Schools 




51 




64 




82 




102 


163 




240 


Universities 




22 




25 




30 




33 


40 




58 


Technical 
























Schools 




11 




12 




14 




18 


23 




38 


Normal 
























Schools 




12 




12 




16 




18 


21 




18 


Colleges 




* 


7 


' 


9 


1. 


8 


2 


2, 


6 


11 


Totals 




471. 


7 


532. 


9 


616, 


8 


712 


849. 


6 


1160 


(a) Statistics 


of 


Publi 


_c 


High Schools, 


1917-18, 


Bureau 


of 



Education Bulletin No. 19, 1920, P. 77. 



•."rfo8 n 



.L-riJrx to -'•^'':trr.-fJt;fr:.\b 3d- 



■q mo 'J 



36 ,C 



gXooiloS 



:oo. 



2-4a 



xa 

(D 

ft 

{>!> 

+a 

+3 
C 
<D 
«^ 

(0 
(H 
<H 
•H 

Ti • 
o 

U CQ 
O I 

<H O 

CQ 05 
q>rH 

■P m 

•H r»t 
tJ O , 

BB 
^§ 

^ O 

o 



X5 






faO 



\ 




•st^ 



o 
o 



o 
o 
to 



O o 



Vi A 


1 o 


O \.? 


t-1 


<0 '-"' 


:-i<P 


>A 


<- t 


r- tc 


1-1 H- 


O tr- 


Q 2 


JiU' 


O XI 



O i-i- 



o 

01 



II-3 

The tendencies in such distribution during the period 
considered are rather more clearly indicated by the percentage 
derivatives shovm in Table III. One of the striking facts indi- 
cated by these percentages is the decidedly constant ratio of 
the total amount expended in support of common school systems to 
the aggregate cost of all types of schools considered. In the 
six different years for which the distribution is shown the range 
of variation in percentage devoted to elementary and high schools 
together is not more than 1.5, the total amount devoted to the 
support of common schools representing approximately 90 per cent 
of all expenditures each year. 

The constant ratio here shown apparently signifies a 
somewhat definite relationship between the funds required for 
public educational activities on the two levels. However, this 
fact should be considered in connection with the distribution of 
funds among the types of schools comprising each group. 

The most significant tendency revealed by the percent- 
ages is the increase in the proportion of funds going to support 
high schools, and the corresponding decline in the percentage ex- 
pended for elementary schools. 

Table III. Percentage distribution of funds among 
different types of schools, 1910-1920. 

Percentage of total expenditures 

1910 1912 1914 1 916 1918 1920 

Elementary 79,50 78,63 75,69 75.70 70.62 68,53 
Schools 

High Schools 

Universities 

Technical 
Schools 

Norma 1 
Schools 

Colleges 

The relation of common school expenditures to total 
expenditures for all schools and the tendency of high schools 
to absorb a constantly increasing proportion of the amount de- 
voted to all common schools are indicated together in Figure 3. 

Here it is shovm that within the ten year period cov- 
ered by this study the high schools have more than doubled the 
percentage of common school funds required for their support, 
although the expenses of the higli schools and elementary schools 
together have increased relatively no more rapidly than expendi- 
tures for all publicly supported schools. 

The explanation of the more rapid increase of high 
school expenditures is in part revealed by the records of increase 
in enrollment, especially when the relative increase in the en~- 
rollment of the different high school grades is tol:en into con- 
sideration. Figure 4 shows clearly the tendency of high schools 



10,81 


12.01 


13.29 


14.32 


19.18 


20.69 


4.66 


4,69 


4.86 


4,63 


4.71 


5.00 


2.33 


2.25 


2,27 


2.53 


2.71 


3,27 


2.54 


2.25 


2.59 


2.53 


2.47 


1.55 


.15 


,17 


.29 


.28 


.31 


.95 



la 10'' 



2-6a 



FIG 3. Percentage of total expenditures for public 
education devoted to common schools, and percentage of 
common school expenditures devoted to high schools, 
1910 - 20. 



1920 



-^-^^^^-^\M 



1////////////////////////^////////////////^^^^^ 



1918 



;^<>\>>^^"-l 



r/////////y/////////////////y////////////^^^^ 



1916 



^x%^^\^ 



//////////////////^/////////////////^^^^^^^ 



1914 



^^^$^1 



/////'V/////////v//y////////////y/////////^^^^^^^^^ 



1912 



#i:^^l 



'///////y////////y//////////////^^^^^^^ 



1910 



^^#1 



''///// yyyyyyyyyyyyy/yy/ywyyyyy//y/yyyyy/yyyy/y''Z 



'yyyy/yA 



NOTE: In the above chart two different comparisons are 
presented. The lowest bar indicates the total expenditures 
for public education in the types of schools here studied 
for the years specified, the total expenditures being taken 
as 100^ in each case. The second bar indicates the per- 
centage that the expenditures for elementary and high schools 
constitute of the total expenditure represented by the first 
bar. The third bar indicates in similar manner the percent- 
age of the total devoted to elementary and high schools 
together which goes to high schools alone. Thus it is shown 
that while elementary -and high schools together have 
received a practically constant proportion of the total of 
public appropriations, high schools have from year to year 
claimed an increasing percentage of the total amount avail- 
able for common schools. 



.G'^-;. 



-OS • OX(?I 



8xex 



E 



eoTunbnfiqxo Xb^oc^ erti o9:t«oJ:i)fti t&d ^aewoX erfT .bs^tnesetq 

fjaibuiB Qierf BXoodOB lo eeqv,^ ®ri^ «X noLtaoifbe o.r.XdrjJq lol 

ne--fB^ .tinlacf 8»^;J^iJb^6qxe Ifiioi ©ri* ,iJeXl.tOc>qa ai^seY Qfi-* io'3: 

-left 0i-f+ a9.tj6oXfini tecT forsooos erIT ♦sajBO rloBS ni i^OOX ax? 

eloodoe rl-.M bna Y^^*it»!"-»Xe no'i eeitiJcMfensqxQ erf J *firti lagsctneo 

-inaoTAq fltri^ -tennfini tsllmlB at as^Bothni n&d bnidi erIT ."£-d 

nwo-"(c al ii BUrfT .©noXjs elooilos ri.'^Xd o;t Dsog doxiivi lari^? - 

evBcl i©ric^930J aXoorfoa d^ld brwo vtBinemeXe eXl.-iw i:.:.r 

lo fsio* edi lo noii'roqo'jq :tnfiianoo yXI/^ox^vOJStq a bevteosT 

tBsy oi ^J3©y moil evfiri eXoorfoe rC^jXrf ,^aoiif.X1qo^qqB oXXdun 

-.!i£ve int/ome Xa^oi &rtt to ei^eineoieq T^aXa-oeioni nfi fcecilx^Io 

, « rc-.nri.'-M- ,••:,-,. l-^•i"no 'liOt '^X'^'B 



2-7 a 






^ 



CD 
<P 

05 
h 

bO 

>s 

ja 

c 

<D 

B 

rH 
O 
h 
C 

CD 

r-i 

o 
o 

jG 
o 

CO 

a 

Xi 
O 



■* 



O 



Jl. O C CD 

to 6h CJ «H 




CJ> 



o 

G4 



8 



10 



II-4 

to carry an increasing proportion of the enrolled pupils through 
the secondary school course. 

From the data of Table III it is obvious that the bulk 
of public appropriations for education must continue to go to 
the common schools. In the effort to plan for adequate provi- 
sion for the school needs of elementary and high school pupils 
it is a common practice of local boards of education to estimate 
the requisite budget of the approaching years in terms of such 
known facts as will likely have some bearing upon the amount of 
money needed. For the country as a whole, or for a given state 
school system, the details of school requirements in individual 
communities are obscured, so that an estimate of future costs 
cannot take into account many of the specific factors that con- 
tribute to the total actual cost of the system. The two factors 
which determine actual costs and which can be ascertained with 
reasonable accuracy for any period for which records are avail- 
able are the number of pupils and the cost per pupil. It is 
not alvi/ays possible to determine the actual cost per pupil in 
elementary and high school sepf.rately- In fact, v/here the two 
units are under one administration, the per pupil cost figure 
is in part an estimate even for a single city. 

On the basis of such facts as could be determined, 
estimates of per pupil costs in elementary and high schools are 
frequently made for various administrative units. In Table II 
such estimates are presented for the United States. The reports 
of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for Illinois 
include separate estimates for high schools v/hich are based up- 
on reports made by the officers of all districts maintaining 
high schools. Using the data of Table II for the United States 
and the superintendent's reports for Illinois, since 1912, an 
attempt has been made to estimate the probable cost of the 
common schools for each of these two units in 1923, 

In Figures 5 and 6 are shown the curve which repre- 
sents the cost of the common school system for a period of years 
in the United States and Illinois, respectively. This portion 
of the curve is the solid line extending to 1920. The dotted 
line of projection merely extends to the point on the scale 
which represents the probable cost in 1925, in each case, and 
does not indicate the estimated cost at intermediate dates be- 
tween 1920 and 1925. The point on the scale v/hich represents 
the estimated cost for 1925;^ has been determined by constructing 
for elementary and high schools separately that trend line 
which represents the product of per pupil cost and enrollment 
for the period for which records were available. These lines 
projected to cover the period to 1925 indicate the total cost 
of the elementary and high school units separately ot that year. 
The sura of these amounts is taken as the total cost for the com- 
mon school system, and the appropriate point is indicated on 
the scale. Thus, for Illinois, it is estimated that the 
probable cost of high schools in 1925 will be $24,500,000. The 
cost of elementary schools is found to be |60,700,000, The to- 
tal approximately ^85,200,000, is indicated in Figure 6 as a 
projection of the curve of common school costs. For the United 
States the estimated cost of elementary and high schools in 
1925 is $1,315,000,000. If the ratio indicated in Figure 3 con- 
tinues as for the past ten years, the estimate here presented 
indicates that the total cost in 1925 of the types of publicly 
supported schools considered in this study will be approximate- 
ly |l, 500,000,000, 






;> ©fl;f ] 
L^. 1 inola ] 

-'I'x ©rid J 
cmonsL \ 






■x&q ^203 sriiJ hao zllquq 1c 



i--l i-'i 






.vd^io Ql^nia x: loi r ioq n± ai ) 



;:iL! 3rtJ lo*? t'-. iB '■ 

a OS Set i.!"^ Jo ■•■ . * lO : 

■■■'■' ;■_ ^-'iiinJ: j 

iti i 



9ri:t ai 'ip 

ai ^o-c--^i lis : ' - 

■ w 



orfi 9; 



-i. oi i- . 


;-^'X- 




. '.1 '1 ' 


n-evoo 


QS 




■:q i 

•Vo i 






.:a 


.trt '1 


■3X1 J 






:::-J ., 


0ff:t i. 






.-if : 



2-9a 



Millions 
Dollars 

1350 



IBOO 



1050 



900 



750 



600 



450 



300 



150 



.,315,000,000 



y 



/ 



X 



1910 



1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 193 



FIG* 5 - Projection of curve of common school costs in the United 
States to indicate probable cost in 1925. 



00Ct000,ex5tX$ 



esQx i-sei sati OQ- 



■Lfei 



i^ 1 •:; 



b''< -' rrui 






2-9b 



ars 



^85,200,000 



1912 



1914 



1916 



1918 



1920 1922 1924 1925 



FIG 6. Projection of curve of common school costs in Illinois 
to indicate probable cost in 1925= 



Q.r^P/ 



^S-?! 



^iP.t 



SI' 



,;.,. ..,c,.;,..:o- --- - -^ ^ V '■■■' noiioefo 

1591 ni ^Qoo ©Ideooiq e*iJOXl 



III-l 



SECTION III 



The Cost per Student in Different 
Types of Schools 

The significance of per capita cost figures for schools 
or school systems of different type depends upon the bases on 
which the cost figures are computed « If it is desired to com- 
pare the cost per student for a specified type of training in a 
selected group of institutions, care must be taken to select only 
the items of expense that contribute to the cost of such training 
in each institution considered. If the institutions are of 
similar type it may be possible to secure data which will yield 
unit cost figures for the several institutions that are more or 
less precisely comparable. If the institutions are of different 
type, it is likely that comparisons will have to be made on a 
somewhat less refined basis. Vi/hen comparisons are proposed which 
involve various types of training in different types of schools 
and school systems, it is obvious that the general aspects of the 
units are to be dealt with. The present study is concerned v/ith 
the cost of publicly supported educational training in general, 
rather than v;ith such specific comparisons as might be of inter- 
est in considerations relating to administrative policy, curricu- 
lum readjustments, etc. 

The classes of schools specified in Section I of this 
report include two general groups, the common schools, comprising 
the elementary and high schools, and the higher institutions. It 
is evident that the cost per student of m_aintaining these two 
classes of schools can indicate only the relative expense of pro- 
viding two different types of training, and will signify nothing 
v\:ith respect to economy or extravagance in the administration of 
the two classes of institutions which provide this training. 
Similarly, the per cqj ita cost figures for the tm^o divisions of 
the common school system and for the different types of higher 
institutions here presented are not regarded as in any sense a 
valid basis of comparison of the efficiency of the institutions 
or of the value of the training offered. 

As a matter of general interest, the cost per student 
in the common schools of certain states and cities are included 
in this section, but it is recognized that there are restrictions 
upon the inferences that may be drawn „ For example, it is shown 
in Table Vl that the cost per pupil in average daily attendance 
for the current expenses of the public schools of Minneapolis in 
1919-20, was about $100, In certain other cities the like cost 
is less than half that amount. While there is no denying the 
fact that variations of this degree imply a distinctly more ade- 
quate provision for effective teaching of the children of the one 
city, the contrast may or may not be as great as the per pupil 
cost figures would suggest. There are such variations in the 
plan of organization and the administrative policy of different 
city school systems and in the relations existing between the 
schools and other municipal institutions, that cost figures often 
apply to widely different situations in different city systems. 
For example, elaborate provisions are made by some city school 
systems for health work and recreation. In other cities these 
are rather largely cared for by other divisions or institutions 
of the municipality. It is clear that the cost per pupil for 
the current expenses of the schools will not be on a comparable 



III-2 

basis in the tv/o cases. It sometimes happens that such compari- 
son between different years for the same system will be affected 
by a change in administrative policy of the schools, as when last 
year the Chicago city schools were called upon to take over ^ the 
administration of certain recreational activities, thus adding 
several hundred thousands of dollars to the expenses of the school 
system. 

Vifhen the higher institutions that are largely supported 
by public funds are classified as in Section I, it is found that 
the income of the university group in 1920 was approximately 56 
million dollars. On the basis of the number of pupils enrolled 
during the regular school year in the same institutions, the 
amount available per student was $451,90. if the income of 
these institutions which come from public sources alone is con- 
sidered, the amount per student was |293.97. For the group of 
technical schools, the corresponding amounts per student were 
;;j)695.39 and 1^400.18. 

In 1919 only three of the state normal schools were ^^^ 
reported on separately as teachers' colleges. The 1920 report 
lists 45 such institutions. Since these constitute a much^larg- 
er group than the colleges, the classification given in Secion I 
is not followed here, but the teachers' colleges are considered 
separately. Omitting the teachers' colleges, the cost per stu- 
dent in the seven colleges included in that list was $414.81. 

The 45 teachers' colleges reporting in 1920 are dis- 
tributed among twenty states. Since all of these institutions 
have summer sessions of somewhat uniform length, the tot^l enroll- 
ment for the year is employed in determing the cost per student. 
On this basis, the income of these institutions in 1920 was 
iil41.11 per student. The amount received from public sources 
was ^119.06. In 135 state normal schools, not classified as 
teachers' colleges, the income per student enrolled was $173.25, 
while the amount received from public funds was §155.36 per stu- 
dent. The income per student of the several types of higher 
institutions on the basis of both total income and the amount 
received from public sources is shown in Table IV. The cost per 
student in teachers' colleges for the six states reporting 3 or 
more such institutions is shovm in Table IV-a. 

Table IV. Income per student enrolled in 

different types of higher insti- 
tutions, 1920. 

Income per Student 

Total Income Public Funds 



Universities 
Technical schools 
Colleges 

Teachers ' Colleges 
Normal schools- 



$451.90 
695.39 
414.81 
141.11 
173.26 



1293.97 
400.18 
339.27 
119.06 
155.35 



(a) Statistics of Teachers ' Colleges and Normal Schools , 
Bureau of Education Bulletin Wo. 8, 1922. 



FIG. 7. Amount of income from public source 
per student enrolled in different types of 
higher institutions, 1920. 



Technical 
Schools 



Colleges [ 



Universities 



Normal 
Schools 



Teachers' 
Colleges 



c 



100 200 300 400 






00-t> 



leoxmioeT 



levifiU 



•asilcO 



III-3 

The difference in the amounts shovm foi' teachers' col- 
leges and for state normal schools, both of which are engaged in 
the same type pf v/ork, is probably accounted for by the fact that 
the latter group includes a number of comparatively small insti- 
tutions in which the cost per student is relatively high. The 
teachers' colleges in general are among the larger and better 
equipped teacher training institutions, and the lower per capita 
cost results from the assembling of larger groups of students. 

Table IV-a, Income per student of the 

teachers' colleges of certain 
states, 1920, 

States income 

pe^ student 

Missouri $178 ♦bS 

Michigan 158.02 

Nebraska 142.09 

Texas 138,74 

Kansas 129,61 

Illinois ^ 79.41 

Imthe United States as a whole the cost per pupil in 
average daily attendance in the public schools in 1920 was 
$54.16. This is an increase of |23,73 per pupil since 1915, 
The cost of public schools per inhabitant of the United States 
was $9,80 in 1920, an increase of $3,77 per inhabitant since 1915, 
The variation in the cost per student or the cost per inhabitant 
of maintaining the public school systems of the different states 
is striking. In 1918 the cost per pupil enrolled for current 
expenses varied from $59.61 in Montana to $7,89 in Mississippi. 
Even a selected group of states representing a single geographi- 
cal division and fairly comparable in other respects reveal like 
variations, as is indicated by Table V. 

Table V. Expenditures in support of public 
schools by certain states in 
1920. (a) 

expenditures for public schools 

State total per pupil per inhab . 

Illinois $71,212,070 $63.15 $10.96 

Missouri (b) 35,168,763 48.53 10.33 

Indiana 20,889,797 37,18 7.13 

Michigan 47,004,620 70.79 12.81 

Wisconsin 27,511,128 59.13 14.52 

(a) Data from reports of state departments of education. 

(b) 1921. 



III-4 



Variations of the type indicated between different 
state systems reveal rather more directly differences in the de- 
gree to which public schools are adequately supported than 
is the case when comparisons are made betvireen smaller school 
unito . The differences in state systems are generally more or 
less balanced by variations in the systems of the individual 
school districts. It maybe assumed therefore, that the schools 
of those states in which relatively small amounts per student 
are expended must suffer many disadvantages in comparison with 
those for whose pupils adequate sums are provided. 

The cost per pupil in city school systems shows strik- 
ing variations for cities of the same size, as well as between 
cities of different population groups. When a single city sys- 
tem is considered in relation to other cities, the total expendi- 
tures do not furnish as satisfactory a basis of comparison as 
the current expenses alone. This is due to the fact that expen- 
ditures for increasing the school plant and equipment vary from 
year to year to a much greater extent than do the current ex- 
penses which provide for the more regular activities of the 
schools. While allowance must be made for the differences in 
organization of the different city systems compared, per pupil 
costs on the basis of current expenses in a group of cities are 
significant as indicating tendencies. Where wide variations 
are observed, however, inferences v/ith regard to adequacy of 
school support should be made only in the light of detailed in- 
formation regarding the work the schools undertake to do. Table 
VI indicates the extent of variation to be found v/hen cities of 
different population groups are considered. If such variations 
are to be noted for elementary and high schools separately, 
further caution must be observed on account of the difficulty of 
dividing the expenditures of a given system betvi/een these two 
units. The cost per pupil for the expenses of instruction alone 
is probably the most satisfactory basis of comparison for the 
two types of schools in different systems . These are shown for 
a selected list of cities of different size in Table Vl-a . 



Table VI. Amount expended per pupil in average daily 
attendance for the current expenses of cer- 
tain city school systems, 1920. (a) 
population population 

over 100,000 50,000 to 100,000 





cost per 




cost per 


city 


pupil 


city 


pupil 


Seattle, Wash. 


$106.07. 


Meriden, Conn. 


$167.41 


Buffalo, N, Y. 


103.74 


Butte, Mont. 


122.42 


Minneapolis, Minn. 


100.48 


Pasadena, Calif. 


110.61 


Los Angeles, Calif. 


96.24 


Berkeley, Calif. 


110.27 


Cincinnati, Ohio 


93.25 


Des Moines, la . 


104,03 


Oakland, Calif. 


92.16 


Cedar Rapids, la . 


94.77 


St. Paul, Minn. 


91,86 


Sacramento, Calif, 


94.55 


Portland, Ore . 


89.51 


Boyonne, N. J. 


92,79 


Cleveland, Ohio 


89,39 


Fort Wyne, Ind . 


88.89 


Indianapolis, Ind. 


87,94 


Utica, N. Y. 


88.51 


Detroit, Mich. 


86,60 


Duluth, Minn. 


80.12 


Grand Rapids, Mich, 


86.16 


Wlteeling, W. Va. 


79.09 


Omaha, Nebr. 


85.79 


Springfield, 111. 


77.42 


Columbus , Ohio . 


84.55 


Canton, Ohio 


76.60 


Newark, N. J, 


84.05 


Salt Lake, Utah , 


75.94 


Spokane, Wash, 


83.97 


Tacoma, Wash. 


75.17 


Kansas City, Mo. 


83.07 


Akron, Ohio 


74.22 


Worcester, Mass. 


80.36 


Oshkosh, V/is . 


70.09 


(a) Data from Stat 


istics of City 


■ School Systems, 1919^ 


-20. 



Bureau of Education Bulletin (in press) 



oig rro 






^16 



--.aTSYS 






iOOi'iOB 



OVv 

'-Is 



;■ 'i £ 



j::J?IXwa no. 



III-5 



Chicago, 111. ;if79.51 

Rochester, N. Y. 78,84 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 77.85 

Philadelphia, Pa. 76.13 

St. Louis, Mo. 76.09 

Milwaukee, Wis. 75.74 

Fall River, Mass. 75.43 

Boston, Mass . 74. 7S 

Washington, D, G, 74,57 
San Francisco, Calif. 74.07 

Jersey City, N, J. 71.04 

Denver, Colo. 70.75 

Lowell, Mass. 69,93 

New York, N. Y. 68,30 

Paterson, N. J. 65.73 

Providence, R.I. 63.51 

Syracuse, K, Y. 62.93 

Bridgeport, Conn. 62,52 

Scranton, Pa. 58,18 

Richmond, Va , 57.11 

Louisville, Ky. 54.83 

Nev/ Haven, Conn, 52.05 

Atlanta, Ga . 51,58 

New Orleans, La. 50.73 

Baltimore, Md . 49.03 

Birmingham, Ala. 37.12 

Nashville, Tenn . 36.93 



Kansas City, Kans 
Peoria, 111. 
Oklahoma , Okla . 
Manchester, N, H, 
pavif tucket, R, I, 
Topeka, Kans, 
New/ Britain, Conn 
Binghampton, N 
Calumet, Mich. 
Salem, Mar - 



Y, 



iss 



Altoona, Pa . 
Flint, Mich = 
Terre Haute, Ind, 
Wilkesbarre, Pa . 
San Antonio, Tex. 
Galveston, Tex, 
Decatur, 111, 
Covington, Ky. 
Lynn, Ma s s « 
El Paso, Tex. 
Little Rock, Ark. 
Springfield, Mo. 
Portsmouth, Va , 
Charlotte, N. C, 
Roanoke , Va . 
Montgomery, Ala. 
Savannah, Ga « 



$69.09 
69.00 
68.35 
66.85 
65.66 
64.98 
64 , 74 
63.26 
62.47 
61.44 
60.99 
60.71 
59.75 
58.70 
57.30 
56.54 
56.08 
53,19 
53.09 
48.65 
45.97 
43 , 12 
38.99 
33.06 
35.30 
30.24 
29.75 



From the data of Table VI it is seen that Seattle ex- 
pended in 1933 nearly three times as much per pupil in average 
attendance as did Nashville, Among the 45 cites of from 30,000 
to 100,000 inhabitants, the highest city in rank reported expenses 
amounting to nearly six times as much per pupil as the one lowest 
in rank. It is interesting to note that the largest amounts 
shown for the 90 cities in these two groups are reported for 
cities of less than 100,000. However, the median city in the 
larger population group reported a higher per pupil cost than the 
median city of the second group, these being St. Louis and 
Pav/tucket vi/ith per pupil expenditures reported as ;,.p76.09 and 
1^66.66 respectively. Likewise, the average for the first group 
is higher, being ^»75,55 as compared with ,,i70.72 for the second 
group. A list of 45 cities of from 10,000 to 30,000 inhabitants 
included in the same report shows a range of from 1^^108,29 to 
1^)25,96 per pupil, the median city expending C'68,44. The average 
for the group was vp55.55. Thus, it appears that for representa- 
tive groups of cities, the expenditures per pupil for current 
expenses are in general higher for. the cities of larger size, but 
the medians for the groups here presented show that the costs may 
"advance irregularly from group to group. 



In Table 
ports of average da 
separately, and the 
tion. This is the 
units separately, s 
buted between the e 
cities composing ea 
random from, a large 
listed in the table 



Vl-a the per capita figures are based upon re- 
ily attendance in elementary and high schools 
reported expenditures for the item of instruc- 
most practicable basis of comparison for these 
ince other costs cannot be so readily distri- 
lementary and high school grades. The 21 
ch of the population groups were selected at 
r group of cities listed by states. Those 
are ranked according to the amount exp'ondeS - 



III-6 

per pupil for instruction. In these coraparisons it is noted that 
the higher cost figures occur in the larger population groups. The 
cities of the first group are those of more than 300,000 inhabi- 
tants, those of the second group ranging between 100,000 and 
300,000. The median cost for the tY<iO units separately in these 
tv;o population groups and in a third group of cities ranging in 
population from 30,000 to 100,000 is shown in Figure 8» 

As has been suggested, the compai-isons shown in the 
tables of this section indicate differences in school costs for 
different types of training or tendencies which are apparent ^iihen 
groups of schools or school systems are considered. There are 
many limitations upon the data so far as specific comparisons 
between institutions or individual systems are concerned. 

Table Vl-a. The cost per pupil of instruction in 
elementary and in high schools in 
cities of different size, 1920. (a) 



Elementary schools 
Seattle, Wash"; 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Buffalo, N. y, 
Los Angeles, Calif. 
Minneapolis, Minn. 
Nev;ark, N. j. 
Cleveland, 0. 
New York, N. Y. 
Chicago, 111. 
Philadelphia, Pa • 
Indianapolis, Ind. 
Washington, D, G. 
Kansas City, Mo, 
San Francisco, Calif* 
Boston, Mass. 
St. Louis, Mo. 
Detroit, Mich. 
Milwaukee, Wis . 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 
New Orleans, La . 
Baltimore, Md . 



Oakland, Calif. 
Portland, ore. 
St. Paul, Minn. 
Worcester, Mass. 
Grand Rapids, Mich> 
Toledo, 0. 
Spokane, Wash . 
Omaha, Webr, 
Denver, Colo. 
Salt Lake, Utah, 
Rochester, N. y. 
Trenton, N. J, 
San Antonio, Tex. 
Providence, R. i. 
Atlanta, Ga , 
Louisville, Ky. 
New Haven, Conn . 
Wilmington, Del. 
Reading, Pa . 
Nashville, Tenn . 



GROUP 1. 

Hi gh schools 

'iff6b,2b Detroit, Mac h . 

61.06 Los Angeles, Calif « 

59.48 Newark, N. J. 

58.21 Philadelphia, Pa. 

56.63 New York, N. Y. 

54.75 Chicago, 111. 

54.60 Buffalo, N. Y. 

52.14 Cincinnati, 0. 

51.35 St. Louis, Mo. 

50.89 Cleveland, 0. 

50,59 Indianapolis, Ind* 

49.96 Washington, D. C. 

49.33 Seattle, Wash. 

49.12 Pittsburgh, pa . 

48.73 Boston, Mass. 

47.88 San Francisco, Calif. 

47,47 Minneapolis, Minn. 

47.21 Milwaukee, Wis. 
43.54 Baltimore, Md . 
38.04 Kansas City, Mo. 
37.01 New Orleans, La. 

GROUP 2. 

$67 . 61 Oakland , Cal if . 

59.39 Trenton, N. J, 
59.32 Denver, Colo. 
54.86 Worcester, Mass. 
54 . 6 5 Omaha , Nebr . 
51.09 St, Paul, Minn. 
50.35 Rochester, N. Y. 

50.22 Providence, R. I. 

47.46 Grand Rapids, Mich. 
47,26 Toledo, 0. 

46.47 Portland, Ore. 

41.40 Des Moines, la. 
38.38 Spokane, Wash. 
36.81 Vdlmington, Del, 
36,58 Salt Lake, Utah^ 
36.24 Louisville, Ky . 
35.69 San Antonio, Tex, 
35.58 Atlanta, Ga . 
33.18 Reading, Pa, 
23,83 New Haven, Conn. 

Nashville, Tenn, 



|182.52 

165.54 

128 . 54 

128.24 

117.95 

117,56 

111.80 

111.33 

110,21 

107.88 

105,85 

103.08 

101,08 

96.12 

94.90 

89 . 17 

88 - 11 

84.71 

78,18 

74 .47 

73.91 



^137.54 

137.43 

123,88 

117.70 

110.84 

110,41 

107,86 

103,29 

102,90 

100,92 

94,23 

92.46 

87.90 

84.64 

83.70 

74,02 

73.54 

72.54 

69.06 

53,65 

52,70 



(a) Data from original reports submitted to Bureau of Educa- 
tion for year 1919-20. 



JC,0.rt 



. 101 



FIG» 8. Medi£«i cost per pupil of instruction 
in elementary and in high schools of 21 cities 
of each of three population groups, 1920. 



Cities over , High 

300,000 



El em. 



100,000 High 

to 300,000 Elem. 



30,000 High 

^° 100,000 ________ Elem. 



25 50 75 100 125 






^<-. r ,-w-v 



■"^r 



J. .' 



000,005 



rfjlH —^ 000,001 



^^^ 00,05 



IV- 1 



SECTION IV 

Division of The Cost of Education 
Between The State and The Student 

In undertaking to indicate the proportion of the cost 
of educational training which is borne by the individual at the 
different school levels, it should be noted in the beginning _ that 
certain items of expense which are more or less generally paid by 
the individual cannot be taken into account. While the tendency 
in public education, very pronounced In schools of elementary 
grade and decreasingly so as the individual progresses to higher 
levels, is obviously in the direction of supplying at public ex- 
pense more and more of the equipment and materials necessary for 
efficient instruction of the type for which the school is designed, 
it is yet a rare case in which the individual is not called upon 
to invest private suras in books, supplies, or paraphernalia re- 
quired by the studies and activities of the schools. Methods and 
procedure in American schools of all grades foster the lavish use 
of these educational supplies and if the total amount so spent by 
individuals attending publicly supported schools could be deter- 
mined and added to reported costs, the aggregate of expenditures 
on account of educational training as thus shown would doubtless- 
be surprisingly greater than the figures usually cited as the cost 
of such training. 

Disregarding expenditures of the type mentioned, avail- 
able records are found to indicate certain payments by individuals 
in attendance in the different kinds of schools which are in ef- 
fect an offset to the cost incurred by the public in maintaining 
these schools. There are, however, certain differences in the 
nature of the assessments im.posed upon the individual by the dif- 
ferent types of schools which should be defined if significance 
is to be attached to the ratio expressing the division of expense 
between the individual and the state. 

In the first place, it may be noted that there is a 
clear distinction in intent and purpose of the provisions which 
are made for common school and for higher institutional training 
with full or partial public support. This distinction is 
evidenced in present administrative requirement and practice in 
two principal ways, first, in the legal basis of organization and 
maintenance of the two classes of schools, and second, in the re- 
lationship established by law between the individual and the 
school. Thus the common school system, now definitely recognized 
as including both elem.entary and high schools, is largely in the 
control of the local communities, which provide in general about 
80?^ of the funds required. Higher institutions, on the other 
hand, are few in number, are supported by the state through legis- 
lative appropriations or specific levies upon the wealth of the 
state at large and control is vested in some type of body repre- 
sentative of the state. Thus the factors of location and extent 
of opportunities provided, as well as the educational requirements 
for admission, make these schools more accessible to certain 
groups of individuals than toothers, and there is a higher degree 
of special privilege accruing to those who attend them. With 
reference to common school training, at least as regards elementary 
school instruction, the state assumes that provision must be made 
for all individuals for the promotion of the best interests of 
society, and claims the right within specified limitations to com- 
pel the individual to attend these schools. While this is not 
true to the same extent as regards the high schools, the tendency 



8v 
?80 :>ila ;iJ 



f,r •■•:-:■ 



^T^rf-t ■*'-'.-■•* fr,?:J'''.n ocT y. 



^ -^ •» r< !■> f) • 



3 *rol 



IV- 2 

is quite clearly in the direction of increasing the amount of 
school training or of increasing the age limit beyond which the 
individual may follow his own inclination with reference to fur- 
ther school attendance. 

From the foregoing it is apparent that American edu- 
cational policy cannot consistently impose upon the individual 
the same obligation to share the burden of expense of training in 
the two situations described. Whatever portion of the cost that 
is shown to be borne by the individual in any specific case will 
be significant, therefore, only in relation to the conditions un- 
der which the payment is made. 

The most obvious difference in administrative practice 
with reference to tuition or other fees for educational service 
in the common schools as contrasted with higher institutions is 
that in the former no charges for tuition are made in the case 
of individuals residing within the district by which the schools 
are supported. There are special fees, such as laboratory fees 
and charges for specialized instruction in such lines as music 
and art, which the resident student is occasionally required to 
pay, but a general charge for tuition in elementary and high 
schools is made only against those who live in districts which do 
not contribute to the support of the particular schools in ques- 
tion. Higher institutions, on the other hand, almost univer- 
sally require the payment of a general tuition fee by both resi- 
dent and non-resident students, the fee for non-residents usually 
being somewhat higher. The implication of this difference with 
respect to tuition charges in the two types of publicly supported 
schools seems to be that higher educational training for the 
individual is not to the same extent a valid charge against the 
state. This attitude is even more clearly expressed in the pro- 
vision now quite commonly made for the payment of tuition charges 
for instruction of non-resident pupils in elementary and high 
schools out of public funds derived from a tax upon the district 
vifithin which such pupils reside » 

In the reports of the state school systems, revenues 
for school purposes are usually detailed according to sources,^ 
the proportion derived from each principal source being specified. 
The recent summaries of state reports issued by the United States 
Bureau of Education do not make a separate classification of the 
receipts of common schools from tuition fees, an indication of the 
relative unimportance of fees as a source of revenue for such 
schools. Individual state reports show that only a small percent- 
age of the cost of the common schools is met by tuition charges. 
Even so, it is not always clear that the amount reported as col- 
lected in fees represents the share of the costs assumed by indi- 
viduals themselves for whose instruction a non-resident fee is 
charged. As hag been pointed out, provision is usually made for 
the payment of tuition of elementary and high school students by_ 
the school districts within which they reside. Such provision is 
usually found where the district does not itself afford the educa- 
tional opportunities required, and at times when it is obviously 
inconvenient to attend school within the resident district, ^fiese 
two classes probably include the great majority of public school 
pupils on whose account any non-resident fees are paid. ^^^^^ 
1920 report for Illinois, a report in which the amount received 
from other school districts in payment Of tuition fees is clearly 
indicated, the amount reported as paid by individuals for fees is 
less than four- tenths of one per cent, of the net receipts of 
district funds, and less than one-fourth the amount collected from 
other districts. The portion of the total of ^sf356,000 paid by 
individuals which was charged for high school as distinguished from 



toaaxi-oni jiiwc 



■ini aidiij <jii^ 



osn'd 



IV- 3 



elementary school instruction is not indicated. 

Besides the fact that a very small percentage of the 
expense of elementary and high school education is actually paid 
by the individual, it may be noted that it is the obvious inten- 
tion of the state to provide such instruction for all residents 
of school age without charge. Such amount as is paid by the 
pupils themselves ;> may perhaps be best regarded as an assessment 
designed to protect the district against encroachment rather than 
as a fee exacted of the individual for the educational service _ 
rendered. Prom the point of view, then, of an intentional divi- 
sion of expense between the individual and the state, insofar as 
such division implies a recognition of any individual responsibil- 
ity for meeting the cost of the training afforded by elementary 
and high schools, it can hardly be said that the individual bears 
any portion of the cost of public school training on this level. 

In the case of higher institutions which are in large 
part supported by public funds, the amount collected from students 
in the form of fees is more validly a measure of the division of 
the cost of education between the state and the individual. In 
addition to the fact that the fees for educational service in 
these institutions are looked upon as a source of revenue, and the 
tendency is apparently in the direction of increasing the amount 
so derived, tuition in higher schools may be regarded as a charge 
against the individuals in attendance at such schools because of 
the special advantages these individuals enjoy. It is true that 
some of the state liniversities and colleges have opened their 
doors to resident students at mere nominal rates of charge, an 
indication of the fact that a somewhat general impression has pre- 
vailed that there should be no limit to the opportunities for 
educational training in this country except such as are set by the 
individual's own native ability or ambition. But most state 
institutions, including many of the normal schools, now have a fee 
schedule which represents a specific charge for the kind of serv- 
ice the school renders. However, the amount charged by schools 
of different states, by different schools of the sam.e state, and 
even in the different departments of the same school is so vari- 
ous that it is evident there is in general no clearly defined 
basis of charge for the training offered. 

In consideration of the many different types of work 
done by state supported schools of higher grade, the most signifi- 
cant index of the division of expense between the individual and 
the state would probably be the proportionate part of the actual 
cost of the particular course taken that is paid by the individual. 
Such a comparison should apparently be readily set up by means of 
unit cost studies in different types of schools and courses and 
the corresponding tuition charges, but there are certain pronounced 
difficulties in the way of any such analysis. 

In the first place, the suggested comparison implies 
that the amount charged as a fee for instruction in a given school 
or department is in some definite manner related to the cost of 
providing this instruction. An analysis of the rates of tuition 
in a representative group of state institutions reveals no such 
relationship generally obtaining either as between different 
schools or different departments of the same school. It is some- 
what difficult to compare fees between different institutions be- 
cause of the lack of uniformity in reporting tuition rates, cer- 
tain special fees or assessments such as laboratory, diploma, 
athletic, or club fees, being included with tuition in some schools 
and in other cases reported separately. However, a reliable 
basis of comparison is found in tables appearing in the report of 



3J'J.>Oi':7; 



Qd:i 






1 lo g 
on filL 



L 9rf(J tjCf j 



to .Ini'- 



o.f stis crtorvljjSjtcf- 



1 ecf Y 






rls stt 









.IS dricf 

/otq 



IV- 4 

the proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Association 
of University and College Business Officers, May, 1921. After 
eliminating fees for graduate study, summer sessions, matricula- 
tion, and all special and deposit fees, the report of fees for the 
year 1920-21 shows a variation in tuition for resident students 
in the liberal arts courses of fifteen state colleges and univer- 
sities of from $20 to $90; In the lam schools of fourteen of 
these institutions, the tuition ranges from $24 to $105 for resi- 
dent students; in medicine, the range for fourteen schools is 
from |24 to fl55; in engineering, twelve schools show a range of 
from $20 to $95; while the seven schools offering agriculture 
report fees of from $20 to $90. While it is doubtless true that 
the actual cost of Instruction in any one of these departments 
varies somewhat between different institutions, this can scarcely 
be taken as the explanation of the differences noted. 

There is the same lack of uniformity in the schedule 
of fees for the different departments of the separate institutions. 
While one western state University charges a fee of $50 for resi- 
dent students in liberal arts, law, medicine, engineering, and 
pharmacy, the university of a central state charges $45 for each 
of these courses excepting pharmacy which is not offered, and a 
north central university offering agriculture and dentistry in 
addition to all those mentioned specifies a different charge for 
each course offered, the fees ranging from $42 to $180. These 
fee schedules for 1920-21 are shown for the fifteen state institu- 
tions in Table VII, 

Prom these exhibits it is obvious that no consistent 
basis can be found for the fee schedules in effect in state sup- 
ported schools, hence a comparison of fees and unit costs by 
courses could have no particular significance for a representative 
group of institutions. 

Besides the variations noted with regard to fee 
schedules, there are other difficulties involved in determining 
the actual cost of the different departments of a given institu- 
tion as a basis of determination of the share of instructional 
expense which is borne by the individual. Such computation 
requires the distribution of operating and overhead expenses to 
the different departments, which distribution can be made only 
on the basis of detailed information with regard to the school 
plant and administrative practices, as well as of expenditures. 
While a number of such studies have been made on the basis of 
actual records, there are such differences in procedure and such 
disagreement as to fundamental principles of accounting among them 
that the results of different studies cannot be regarded as com- 
parable. 

Yet another difficulty in the way of a comparison of 
unit costs and individual fees arises from the fact that excep- 
tions are made to specified rates of tuition in practically all 
state higher institutions. Allowances are made for student 
service, scholastic attainment, previous military service, etc. 
Besides^ there are in certain state institutions a number of 
political scholarships exempting the appointee from payment of 
part or all of the normally assessed fees. Per capita costs 
based upon enrollment or attendance, or upon the number of stud- 
ent-hours of instructional service given in different departments 
would involve all students, including those who do not pay the 
regular tuition rate. The ratio of tuition fee to per capita cost 
would be affected, then, by the policy of a given institution 
with reference to such exemotions, as well as by the distribution 
among the different departments of the students to whom allowances 
are made. 



oeaA 9- ';rii ' 

' ^- • lo| 

■■^'■■•^- ' ... c/lct ni. \ 

"10 89£;ti:e ^ 



aliriW I 



rioea 






' no 



^8 ■■; 



Table VII. Comparative Fee Schedule of Fifteen 
State Institutions 



1920-21 



IV -b 



Institu- 
tions 


Lib. 


Arts 


Lav/ 1 Medicine 


Engineer | Dent] 


Lstry 


Pharmacy 


Agr. 


^R 


N-R 


R N-R ! R 


N-R^ 


R 

60 


N-R j R 


N-R 


R N-R 


R N-R 


A 




72 


84 


1 
66 66 1 150 


150 


( 99 
60 (180 


99 
180 


54 54 


42 84 


B 


30 


80 


1 
1 
1 

60 110 1 150 


200 


30 


80 


(100 
(150 


150 
200 


■ 
30 80 


30 80 


C 


24 


148 


24 148 1 24 


148 


24 


148 








24 148 


D 


30 


30 


1(120 

30 30 1(155 

j 


120 

155 


30 


30 


(120 
(150 


120 
150 


60 60 
95 95 


30 30 


1 

E 


55 


55 


75 100 


150 


175 


55 


i(l65 
55 (175 


190 
220 


75 75 




F 


(80 
(76 


105 
101 


105 125 
101 121 


140 
136 


165 
161 


95 
91 


120 1 140 
116 136 


175 
171 


95 120 
91 116 




G 


44 


55 


45 55 


45 


55 


45 


55 








H 


90 


90 


















90 90 


I 


34 


34 


49 49 






39 


39 








34 34 


J 


20 


30 


34 45 


34 


45 


20 


30 






34 45 




K 


20 


50 


70 100 


95 


125 


20 


50 






75 100 




■ L 


20 


35 








20 


25 








20 25 


M 


30 


30 


30 30 


30 


30 


30 


30 






30 30 




M 


50 


85 


65 100 


(125 
(150 


125 
150 

















45 


90 


60 90 


120 


150 















* ' Graduate School, Summer Session, Matricultaion, Special and Deposit 
Fees are not included. 



Note: The letter "R" at the head of the left hand columns desig- 
nates Resident Students. "N-R" designates non-Re sident 
Students, Bracketed figures indicate different rate for 
freshman and sophomore students 



OOS Ocf) 



1"^ 



Table Vll-a. Comparative Fee Schedule of Fifteen 
State Institutions 



IV- 6 



1921-22 



i 


Lib. 


Arts 


Law 


Medicine 


Engineer Dent. 


LStry 


Pharmacy 


1 
AEri. 


1 

j 


R 


N-R 


R 


N-R 


R 


N-R 


R 


N-R R 


N-R 


R 


N-R 


R 


N-R 


; ^ 


60 


90 


90 


1 
120 180 


210 


90 


120 180 


210 


90 


120 


60 


90 


i 
i 

1 B 


40 


140 


60 


160 150 


250 


30 


1(100 
130 (150 


150 

250 


30 


130 


30 


130 


C 


24 


148 


24 


146 


24 


148 


24 


148 








24 


148 


i 
D 


50 


50 


50 


50 


(120 
(155 


120 
155 


50 


50 


120 


120 


60 
95 


60 
95 


50 


50 


E 


55 


55 


75 


100 


150 


175 


55 


55 


(165 
(175 


190 
200 


75 


75 






F 


(80 
(76 


105 
101 


105 
101 


125 
121 


140 
136 


200 
196 


95 
91 


120 
116 


140 
136 


200 
196 


95 
91 


120 
116 






G 


75 


85 


■75 


85 


75 


85 


75 


85 










75 


85 


H 


90 


90 






















90 


90 


I 


34 


34 


49 


49 






39 


39 










34 


34 


J 


20 


30 


( 35 
(100 


45 
100 


35 


45 


20 


30 






35 


45 






'k 


25 


50 










25 


50 










25 


50 


L 


25 


50 


75 


100 


95 


125 


25 


50 






75 


100 






M 


45 


150 


45 


150 


45 


150 


45 


150 






45 


150 






N 


50 


85 


65 


100 


150 


150 





















45 


90 


60 


90 


120 


150 



















snoiJU&zTsnl 



aex 351 |XS£ loj. jxox s?) 



Universities 


11.3 


64.7 


5.6 


technical schools 


5.9 


58.2 


4.1 


colleges (a) 


7.9 


75.8 


2,1 


all schools 


9.5 


62.8 


4.9 



IV- 7 



Table VIII. Percentage of total income derived from each of 
principal sources in 1920, 

student public product private other 
fees funds funds funds sources 

5.2 13.2 

19.4 12,4 

8.9 5.3 

9.-9 12.9 

Apparently the only measure of the division of the cost 
of higher training between the individual and the state is to be 
found in the ratio of total receipts from fees for educational 
services to the expenditures by the state in support of such train- 
ing. Table VIII shows the proportionate part of total funds ex- 
clusive of receipts for permanent endowment and from fees for non- 
educational services, such as board and room rent, virhich was de- 
rived from each of the principal sources by state supported uni- 
versities, colleges, and technical schools in 1920. 

The percentages shown in Table VIII. indicate the rela- 
tive importance of student fees and appropriations from public 
funds in contributing to the total income of the types of state 
schools specified. Considered from this point of viev^r, it is 
noted that the three classes of schools taken together receive ap- 
proximately six and one half times as large a share of their total 
income from public funds as is received from fees for sducaticnal 
services. Regarding the three classes of schools separately, it 
is observed that the colleges receive the largest percentage of 
total income from public funds, universities the largest percentage 
from student fees, while technical schools receive a smaller per- 
centage of total income from each of these two sources than 
either the colleges or the \miversities. These variations, how- 
ever, are obviously influenced by differences in the relative im- 
portance of other sources of revenue for the three types of 
schools. For example, the strikingly large percentage of total 
income which came through private contributions in the case of the 
technical schools serves to reduce the percentages shown for this 
group as derived from fees and public funds in comparison with the 
other types of schools. 

If all other sources of income are disregarded, it is 
found that the ratio of the total derived from student fees to 
the total received from public funds for the same groups of schools 
is approximately one to six in the case of the universities, and 
one to ten in the technical schools and the colleges. Consider- 
ing the totals for the three classes of schools- together, the re- 
ceipts from public funds amount to 6,8 times as much as is de- 
rived from student fees. Reduced to percentages, the summaries 
show that student fees constitute 12.9 per cent, of the total in- 
come of the three groups of schools from such fees and public 
funds together. For the universities alone this percentage is 
14. 9, for technical schools it is 9.2, and for the colleges 9.5. 

Some indication of the tenc^-^i^cy with reference to the 
division of expense of higher educatiOi:al training between the 
state and the individual may be determined by reference to similar 
percentages based upon reports for a similar list of schools for 
1918, Employing the same classification and including all schools 

(a) Excluding teachers' colleges formerly in normal school 
. group. 



bo ! 



•11 I 






TO 



tf)l,G.f^X 



J8 
:;■ T.aq 

.8xex 



4-14 

FIG. 9. Percentage of total income of universities, 
technical schools, and colleges derived from student 
fees and from public funds in 1919-20. 



Universities 



Technical 
Schools 



Colleges (1) 



All SchCols 



11.3 



5.9 



7.9 



9.5 



64.7 



58.2 



75.8 



62.8 



24 



35.9 






16.5 



87.7 



Percentage 



20 



40 60 80 100 



Student 
Fees 



Public 
Funds 



D 



other 
Sources 



(1) Excluding techers' colleges formerly in normal school group . 



S ('''■- bis ic: rrtit fooviieh 



aeoiel 



I-<^orlv 



39?^eIXO0 '^16; 



3X3 (X) 



IV- 8 

of the three types listed as state institutions in 1918, it is 
found that student fees constitute 11.8 per cent, of the total 
income from both student fees and public fimds in the case of the 
university group, 8 per cent, for the technical group, end 15,7 
per cent, for the colleges, Vi/ithin a period of two years, then, 
it is seen that there was a decided increase in the percentage 
derived from fees in the case of the university group, a smaller 
increase for the technical schools, and a considerable decifease 
in the case of the college group. This change with reference 
to the percentage derived from fees by the colleges is in part 
explained by the increase in the number of the schools included 
in this classification in 1920. over the number reported in 1918. 
Since the total number 'of colleges supported by state funds is 
relatively small, the addition of two new schools, one of which 
reported no income from fees, was sufficient to change the ratio 
materially. The percentages for the two years are shown in 
Table IX,^ 

Table IX. Relation of income from student fees and from public 

funds in universities , colleges, and technical schools, 
1918 and 1920. 

percentage of total of fees and 
public funds derived from, fees 

1918 1920 

universities 11.8 14.9 

technical schools 8.0 9,2 

colleges 13.7 9.5 

all higher schools 10.7 12.9 

The explanation of the increase in the percentage de- 
rived from fees by the universities and technical schools is 
found in the general tendency to increase the tuition rates dur- 
ing the past few years. In the report of the Association of 
University and College Business Officers to which reference has 
been made, comparative fee schedules for 1920-21 and 1921-22 are 
presented for a representative group of state institutions, as 
shown in Tables VII and Vll-a. Of 15 such institutions, 6 re- 
ported an advance in tuition rates for resident students in lib- 
eral arts co\irses, the amount of Increase ranging from 25 per cent, 
in two institutions to 67 per cent, in two others. In technical 
and professional courses corresponding increases are shown, 4 
institutions reporting a constant percentage increase in rate in 
all courses offered, one indicating an increase of 67 per cent, 
in all departments excepting medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, 
another reporting a different rate of increase in all courses ex- 
cepting liberal arts, in which the tuition for resident students 
was reduced by 20 per cent. One institution, however, reported 
an increase of 33 per cent, in tuition of resident students in 
liberal arts, while the rates in all other departments remained 
unchanged. Seven institutions reported no change in the fees of 
any department from the rates in effect the preceding year. 

The fees for non-resident students are in general some- 
what higher than for resident students in all departments, Only 
two of the universities in this group report the same tuition 
rates in 1921-22 for both classes of students in all departments, 
and one of these has announced a new schedule for 1922-23 in which 



IV-9 

higher rates are specified for non-resident students. 

There is, however, nothing approaching uniformity in the 
degree of difference shown in fees prescribed for the resident and 
non-resident groups. In one university the fee for resident 
students is ^24 in all departraents, while the rate for non- 
resident students is uniformly ;i.;>148. In another, the fee is the 
same for both groups in liberal arts, engineering, and pharmacy, 
and iip25 higher for non-resident students in law, medicine, and 
dentistry. In a third institutiaa of the same class, the rate is 
uniformly ^75 for resident students and \}Q5 for non-residents, 
while another charges 025 more for non-residents in liberal arts, 
engineering, and pharmacy, ^20 more for law, and ^60 more in 
medicine and dentistry. 

Apparently one principal consideration in determining 
the difference in charge to non-resi dent students is the question 
of v;hether or not it is desired to attract such students to the 
school. Here there seems to be a various policy both as between 
different institutions and with respect to different departments 
of the same institution. Obviously the institution which charges 
non-residents a rate uniformly six times the amount charged resi- 
dent students is not seeking to increase its enrollment by attract- 
ing students from other states, whereas a uniform fee for all 
students probably indicates that such increase is desired. A 
material difference in the excess of charge to non-residents among 
the different departments of the same institution may indicate 
merely the desire to restrict the enrollment in the more crowded 
departments, or may express the attitude of different administra- 
tive groups with reference to non-resident students. 

The significance of these different tuition rates so far 
as the special problem of this study is concerned lies in the fact 
that the total receipts from tuition fees as generally reported do 
not distinguish the amount received from resident students alone. 
Enrollment figures for the different departments are reported but 
these records do not indicate the distribution of non-resident 
students, hence no estimate can be given of the probable ratio of 
receipts from fees for resident students to the total amount of 
fees paid. The percentages indicating the relation of state 
support to individual payment for the educational training received 
are based upon the total receipts reported from fees for both 
resident and non-resident students. This percentage in 1920 was 
Shown to be 14.9, 9,2, and 9,5 for the university, technical, and 
college groups, respectively. In as much as there is a discrimi- 
nating charge in the case of certain groups of students on account 
of place of residence, the percentages stated do not indicate 
precisely the portion of the cost of advanced training which the 
state proposes to pay for the resident individual, assuming that 
tuition rates may be regarded as an evidence of such intention. 
The number of non-resident students in state institutions is rela- 
tively small, however, and deductions on account of fees paid by 
these students would likely change the above percentages only 
slightly for any of the groups of schools considered. 

Some caution should probably be observed in regard to 
any inferences that may be drawn from the percentages indicating 
the relative amount of the expense which is borne by the state in 
the different classes of schools. There are a number of different 
factors affecting the percentages as computed and it is doubtful 



IV-XO 

if the difference shown for the university and technical 
groups, for example, signifies any conscious difference in 
policy with respect to public support, although there might 
be some significant difference in the matter of requirements 
as regards the two types of institutions. The ratios are 
significant, however, as indicating a somewhat definite limi- 
tation upon the extent to which the individual is expected 
to share with the state the cost of advanced training in 
liberal or vocational courses. 



V-1 



SECTION V 



Division of the Cost of Education Between 
the State and the Student in England, 
Germany, France, and Canada.. 



In considering the practice -of other countries with re- 
spect to the extent to which educational opportunities are pro- 
vided at public expense, it is recognized that direct comparisons 
cannot generally be drawn between the various units of these 
school systems and the different types of publicly supported 
schools in the United States. While it is clear that no other 
system of public education contemplates even an approach to the 
unrestricted opportunity for higher educational training afforded 
the youth of this country, the mere statement of difference in 
the relative cost of such training to the individual and the 
state in this and other countries may not in itself represent the 
degree of difference in public support of schools. Besides the 
limitations set by social practice, there are organic differences 
in the institutions of higher learning of the United States and 
those of other countries that make the factor of costs to the 
student in the tv/o situations quite incomparable, The same is 
true in the case of secondary schools as well in the European 
countries here considered. The statistics for foreign systems 
are presented for the light they throw upon the general educa- 
tional aims and practices of these countries, rather than as a 
basis for specific comparison as to the extent of public support 
of corresponding divisions of the American system. 

It is apparently the purpose of each of these foreign 
countries to see that no individual is denied the privilege of 
elementary educational training. It is understood, hov^ever, that 
the state does not necessarily have to provide school accommoda- 
tions for all individuals of elementary school age. The social 
and religious ideals that have influenced educational practice 
for generations, and in certain aspects even for centuries, ef- 
fect a segregation of particular classes of individuals for whose 
instruction either the family or the church assumes more or less 
responsibility. For example, two-fifths of all the pupils en- 
rolled in the ordinary public elementary schools of England in 
1914 were attending schools which were established by some 
voluntary agency, though the expense of maintenance was borne by 
the public. (a) While reports from France and Germany for the 
years immediately preceding the outbreak of the war show a con- 
siderably larger percentage of pupils enrolled in the more dis- 
tinctly public schools, practically all children who were expect- 
ed to progress beyond the equivalent of the American elementary 
school curriculum were enrolled in schools in which all or a 
significant part of the expense is borne by the individual. In 
Canada-, the situation with regard to elementary education is in 
general like that of the United States. The elementary schools 
are free to all classes and supported entirely by public funds, 
except in the province of Quebec. Private elementary schools en- 
roll but fev; pupils in any of the provinces . 

So far as the elementary grades of instruction are con- 
cerned, it may be said that such training is practically free for 

(a) Peter Sandiford, Comparative Education . London; J. M. 
Dent & Sons, 1918. P. 203. 



V-2 



the masses of people in all the countries here considered. Even 
in England, where prior to the passage of the Education Act of 
1918 local boards of education were permitted to charge fees 
for instruction in the ordinary schools of elementary grade, the 
rate was small in those districts in which any charge was made 
and the amount of money generally derived from this source was 
negligible. According to a recent general statistical report, (a 
the amount expended in support of elementary education in 1914 
was 26 million pounds. Of this amount 1.7 per cent, was ^ derived 
from such sources as minor appropriations of local authorities, 
fees and the sale of books and other articles, endowments, etc., 
more than 98 per cent, being derived from parliamentary grants 
and local taxation. V/hile the total amount derived from fees 
for instruction alone is not reported, fees and receipts from the 
sale of books and other articles in 1913 constituted only about 
0.7 per cent, of the total amount available for the support of 
public elementary schools. In the other countries there are no 
fees for instruction in the common schools of elementary grade. 

This does not mean, however, that all individuals in 
these countries have the opportunity to secure free elementary 
school instruction. It is true in the case of Canada where the 
public elementary schools lead directly to the higher schools. 
In Germany and France, and in somewhat less degree in England, 
all students vifho expect to progress to higher educational insti- 
tutions are required to enter a school which prepares for such 
instruction at least by the age of nine years- These are known 
as secondary schools, but provide elementary instruction as well 
for the younger pupils. While in each of these countries there 
are numerous subventions and scholarships, 1:he majority of the 
pupils pay tuition fees, and the income from this source is an 
important factor in the support of the schools. 

In Canada, v^iere the secondary schools closely resem'-- . 
ble the public high schools of the United States, secondary edu- 
cation is inexpensive. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the 
high schools are practically free, vAiile the fees charged in 
other provinces are small- For example, the average fee in the 
high schools of Ontario is less than $4,50 per year, (b) 

While the secondary schools of England, France, and 
Germany are not in all respects" similarly administered, they are 
alike in that they are designed to provide training for those 
who are destined to enjoy the advantages of higher education, 
include both elementary and secondary courses of instruction, and 
are only partially supported by public funds. In England about 
ten per cent, of the income of the secondary schools, not includ- 
ing private institutions, has for some years been derived from 
student fees. ' Parliamentary grants and rates (property taxes) 
provide about 80 per cent, of the total, (c) 

■In 1914 Germany spent the equivalent of about 19 mil- 
lion dollars in support of secondary schools. Of this amount, 
39 per cent, was derived from fees and 56 per cent, from state 
and local sources. (d) There are several tjrpes of secondary 
schools in Germany, the course running from six to nine years, 
and the fees vary in the different types of schools, as well as 
in the higher and lower grades « There is also an intermediate 

(a) Statistical Abstract for the Unit^ed Ki ngdom , 1919 . P. 398. 

(b) Sandiford, op. cit , P. 411. 

(c) ibid. p. 274. 

(d) ibid. p. 148-9. 



V-3 

school which is more closely connected v/ith the elementary school 
system and is in many instances maintained by communities which 
cannot maintain secondary schools. The fee that may be charged 
is limited, however, to not more than half the amount charged in 
the secondary schools. They are relatively few in number, en- 
rolling only about three per cent, of the pupils in 1911, and are 
generally inexpensive so far as cost to the individual is con- 
cerned . 

The secondary schools of France serve the double pur- 
pose of providing a liberal education, and of preparing the stu- 
dent for entrance into the universities, the engineering schools, 
and the normal schools. The baccalaureate degree is granted 
for completion of the secondary school course. This degree ad- 
mits the graduate to the government military and naval academies 
and makes him eligible to appointment to certain desirable posi- 
tions in the post office and the interior departments. Pees in 
these schools vary according to the district, the age of the 
pupil, and the extent to which he is under the care of the in- 
structors. Charges are higher in schools located in the cities. 
The cost is likewise greater for students who board at the schools 
all or part time, and for those who study under the immediate 
direction of the instructors. In general, the family bears about 
52 per cent, (a) of the total cost of maintenance, not including 
the cost of buildings which are expensive and are paid for by the 
state. Other expenses are met by the state and its subdivisions. 

The institutions of higher learning in the countries 
here considered likev^rise present a variety of administrative as- 
pects when considered from the point of view of the cost of 
education on this level. Thus in the French universities there 
are no fees for instruction as such. However, the statement 
that higher instruction is free to the student is misleading in 
view of the fact that numerous fees for other privileges and 
services are exacted of all students. These include fees for 
matriculation, registration, library and laboratory privilege, 
examination, and diploma, the aggregate in the pre-war period 
being about 205 francs per year. The fees are assessed by the 
universities rather than by the state, and receipts therefrom are 
expended principally for library and laboratory equipment and for 
publications, the university depending upon the state to supply 
nearly all funds required for instruction, general equipment, and 
scholarships. About half the bost of construction of university 
buildings has been contributed by the towns in which the institu- 
tions are located, the state providing the balance. 

All of the British institutions for higher training 
receive contributions from public funds, the leading universities 
which are in part supported by contributions from their incor- 
porated colleges receiving the least support from public sources. 
Reports for Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham show that in 1912 the 
receipts from fees constituted 32 per cent, of the total expendi- 
tures of the three universities, while only about 15 per cent, of 
the funds came from local, parliamentary, and treasury grants- 
The six provincial universities, on the other hand, received 
(1913) a little more than half the amount of their total expendi- 
tures from local and parliamentary grants, and only about 25 
per cent, from student fees. The University of London and its 
colleges collected in the same year 48 per cent, of its funds in 
student fees, and was supported by local and parliamentary grants 
to the extent of one-third the amount of its necessary expendi- 
tures . Reports of four independent university colleges,- that is, 

(a) Sandiford op. cit. P. 303. 



-fti sr; 




.?.aidi:o -. 




alcorio^ 


CIEOCf 


9 .:' 


orfrt 16'. . 


ii/r, ' 


■ an 7 , • 


>". 


, mi^.cnaJ;. 


orfj Yd' ic 


t3 brts sv 


, srcoxBlvxfac 


. 'nr atn;'?; 



:;j£;i ;:fGXiCj ©si shi'- ' * a.! -csLifoo-.f'ii x- ionfifiO 

:f .:; :;r::c^ '.i^i ■1'J'~:' "nGrfd :■; oJ iievsvA . ixni:X ai 

-ne • S'lB Y^fi-^ »eX'ooxlo5 ^^-ii^ijjfiooss orii 

aic ^•; . .jner' 'Xdq- o-tt'i: iuooe 1^^- ";rrr rim 

nq lo brtfe xq lo ocoq 

x^ne arid .. -•:■ 'tol; :!nab 

•13 8b eiBS'.:. 'J difi' «s.ioo/. 'j.'"tQ 

. DaiJJOD Y-XEbnoooB sriJ , toI 

■'?;::.:> Oct CM'tsr-jfr; coqB od- sXcfi:??.? f'- nlri 3©:lGra b^i" 

..-I a 90x110 i KX Brfoxcr 

^rri'biooos ^ urioa oearfcf 

: noiriw oH vine.. urte ,Ii:qyq 

■X ax •:JBoo t-;iT 

• :t rf-xsq 10 il ■ 

•lociointiBCix an? 'io noriae'xi;^ 

ic' edj lo (jsj) .c^nso isq S3 

■ .Jxwcf "io ie.00 erfct 

..o 'is.ictc .sJ-jecTa 

3,0 Y''''S-C'^'^^' • '-"q 9aj:w9s,xi jDoiQcxcnoo ©lex"! 

'voiv '»..; .i .: ..: moi'i btsisblBmoo nsriw acfooq 

t^x gjjjiT , X»y@I aiiict xto noicfsot/bs 

■•:.,. iojya se no.td"0ijtcl-8ni: aol nesl on dis 

rfx anxbesiaxr ax c^rtsbwcra on;t od- 3©o:l: SX csoiionjiic. li ;rflrf:t 

lol 3?.. ;>sla XXe lo bs^^oexs sis ssoivise 

<&?;on „ .. ■■:£ ^ no i: *^ '■■'.:'.. •^' 91 ^noi.: -.'c-ir-i^cm 

&o ;q en:i nx c •■ sricf . bne »r- -j^xe 

9iij . ■ 9ie seel •'^■■::^' > i cJOS j.-/ .i&d 

8ifi tnc BiqioooT bne rfctei BSicficJievlnw 

'iol bf: 'upQ 'iioiQiod'^i . ... . . mqiontiq bsbiieqxs 

v,Xc ,■ tBCfe ©rii rtoqt' s^ij:' isvirtw oxicf ^anoxcfsoiXcfi/q 

' ■■■ .^ '^^ '■,-'ir:-r^>': ..-:•;■-•?•„ _ :. o'3:l:wp9'r sbrrwl f n-. - '■Tsen 

' IXBjtl ci-wocfA .8r iioa 

:,rMf-:i*--vv ■■■:■■ ;:rf ;-:: • :.-[ 



:-■.."' r;:- /ffj ^;lawl otFcSuq tno'it onnJcUij xicfnc . ■ .. ::0©t 

..fXid'noo \:d bsriioc •, nx oie xioXrtw 

nx d-en.1 v 

-X jBctod" srW X , .^ _ . . : . _ ■ , .. ^. 

'to .jifon isq 51 wT-.oode ^^^^ oiiriw »soxcfXBi9vxaw oa-xno ©xi;? lo asiwd' 
";:; -•o'T- ■■ ■•i'.;-'0£'f. • .' '1 ■? .•",. ■■.d!!Oi,,9i/if;q ^XfcooX i.to'il omco 8br£x;l: 9ri;t 

'iarf.©vXa'/ if-Xonivo'xq xia eriT 

■( r^r-r'} -;,7i ©XCfC^.tf 6 (oX€X) 

Xisool raoij: Boiwd" 

• •':•' ■ ■ p. ffioi']: .ctnso loq 

dcfx lo -ji IXoo a93oXXoo 

t.-tvii:i.x If .;i-. ^8991 ctnabwiJa 

ono lo cfned-x9 ©rlcf 0.1- 
, V ";- v.J'ioq&H . a9ijj:t 

.oC- iiolibrteS ( c) 



V-4 



colleges that are not incorporated within one of the greater uni- 
versities-show receipbs from local and parliamentary grants in 
1913 amounting to 74" per cent, of their expenditures, fees sup- 
plying 26 per cent. 

Rather liberal support is given also to the agricultural 
and technical colleges. Reports from tvifelve of these schools in 
1913 indicated receipts from local and parliamentary grants 
amounting to 60 per cent, of the costs for the year- Approximate- 
ly 28 per cent, of their funds came from student fees. 

The relative amounts contributed to the total income 
of each of the principal types of higher institutions of England 
and Scotland by fees and by appropriations from public funds are 
shown in Table X, The data for Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham 
are for the year 1912. Those for the other institutions relate 
to the year 1913. 

Table X. Percentage of total income of English 
and Scotch universities and colleges 
derived from fees and from appropria- 
tions of public funds. (a) 

institutions percentage of income 

fees pub, funds 

Oxford, Cambridge, and 

Durham 32 15 

University of London 48 33 

Provincial universities 25 52 

Independent university 

colleges 26 74 

Agricultural and tech- 
nical colleges 28 60 

Scotch universities 29 40 

All of the higher institutions with the exception of the 
independent university colleges have other sources of income be- 
sides fees and grants. The larger universities receive consider- 
able contributions from their incorporated colleges, in addition 
to the income from endowments, which are large as compared v/ith 
those of most other European universities. 

The Scotch universities receive about the same public 
support as is given the provincial universities in England, five 
of these institutions reporting receipts from local, parliamentary, 
and treasury grants in 19].3 amounting to 40 per cent, of the ex- 
penditures. Student fees were in that year approximately 30 per 
cent . of the expenditures . 

Canadian universities have in recent years received 
about one-third of their income from public funds. Reports for 

(a) Data from U, S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 16, 
1917 . Studies in Higher Education in England and 
Scotland. 



V-5 

14 institutions in 1918 (a) and 13 institutions in 1920 (b) show 
that while their income had almost doubled, the proportion of the 
total which was derived from Government and municipal grants was . 
in each case approximately 33 per cent. The percentage of income 
derived frora fees declined in the two years from 22§ per cent to 
19 per cent. Reports (c) for seven colleges receiving public 
support in 1920 show receipts of slightly less than 33 per cent . 
from government and municipal grants, while the income frora fees 
was approximately 25 per cent of the expenditures. 

The industrial and technical schools of Canada, as in 
the case of England, are somewhat more generously supported. In 
the province of Ontario, where these schools are most highly 
developed, the legislative and municipal grants constituted sixty- 
five per cent of the total income in 1920 (d) Student fees, on 
the other hand, amounted to less than 5 per cent of the total cost 
of maintenance. It should be noted, however, that much of the 
work of these institutions is of secondary rather than of univer- 
sity grade. This fact probably accounts for the relatively low 
percentage of income derived from fees . 

The universities of Germany are under state control and 
are in general rather liberally supported by the state. Since 
1870 the state has paid not less than two-thirds of the total cost 
of maintenance of the principal universities, and by 1908 the 
proportion of state funds had increased to three-fourths of th.e 
total income. The latest report giving details of expenditures 
for the German universities shows that the University of Berlin 
in 1912 received 83 per cent of its reported expenditures from 
state funds (e). The other universities were probably not so 
liberally supported, but received the greater portion of their in- 
come from, .the state. As these universities have little permanent 
endowment the actual payments of students approximate a fourth of 
the costs of maintenance in most of the German institutions, 

(a) Imperial Year Book for Canada, 1917- 18. P. 391 

(b) The Cana da Year Book, 1^20. pp. 156-7 

(c) ibid. Pp. 162-3. 

(d) Report of the Director of Technical Education for Canad a, 1920. 

(e ) Report, Uniteci States Commissioner of Education, l^lS. Vol.l, 
P. 823. 



woria (tf) 0291 
9jaiO0il,t lo .^• ■••:•■•■•• - ■--■':• -.. • ~ -,- - ■ r 



iwcMfinsqxe 3.d:J- to 



- •■" doe© ::i: 

Bjqieoai woris 02GX nt d-xoqqi/a 

' ■•": ' •'■ ■. wm bnn j-nr.:- ■ " - -.-■--.:, moi'i 
•'Liq S2 Yiad^;- ;3 sew 



ttl .t9;}'xoqqws ^Iswoisnsa atom c^erfwernos sis , xO sbb-j o; , 

Yln3i:/i ieon sis sloorioe easxi^ oiorfv; ^oiT . Torxlvoiq ocl^ 

no ^-■ axid-a (Jb) 02&I ni smooni Igc^o:? ari^ Tto cffiso Taq avil 

•CO Xeauj •:;. lo dnoo leq C nerio se©! od' 6e;tawomG ,b.- ' •'o Qcii 

Qcil 1o dousa cfaric^ ^'iove^iod ,b3.'Jorf 3Cf bXuoris *I .c : om lo 

woX tjXgvicteXs'x sri:t "Xol adn.. r.^ffjcfotq ^oel aidT .sbfii?^ xilz 



;oo Xed-ocf files' 'io sMxrf;f-0'j./..i 
ecii 80ex TjcT Me ,B9i:fian.:. 
Qd-J Jo ?Minuo1-'eQiiii oi &©t; .:..-> 
iotsji ibneqxe 1c sXisc^sb gfixvig 

rtio-il BBtisi iba.&qKQ beitO'qQt sa 



Xe'iecXiX torf-lBi' Xeiewos «-i ©"^f- 

•X sort blBq BBff aetata ori* 0V8X 

.qioniaq Bci:i lo 9one«9;^nX«m lo 

• ,;. bfid ?.hnv1 &i8i'a lo nolitoqotq 

itoqin i^Q^Bl otiT , smoocti Xsctocf 

- ■ -^ ■ 'V^Elsvjtfti; nsni'xeO Qd:i rrol 

xsq £8 beviooe-x 2X61 nl 

bevieODt ^x/d ^bed'ioqqws yXXsi^cfiX 

lo sdTioxsjveQ Xejyrfofl sri;! drtsiiiwobno 



u Bi-VXOX .sbeneO -xol: >Iooa, "XBaY leti( 



*J3!oo3 1 



::?;■ 



JTTqT 



5X»X »nc 



.J3Tan" 



VI-1 
SECTION VI 
Public Support of Education 
in Illinois and Other States. 

There are in general only a few types of higher educa- 
tional institutions receiving their principal revenues from public 
sources. Of these, only the normal schools are numerous enough 
in a given state to be treated as a group. A comparison of the 
division of expense for educational training between the state and 
the individual in different states, if elementary and high schools 
are regarded as supported entirely by public funds, is in effect 
merely a comparison of individual institutions in this respect so 
far as universities, colleges, and technical schools are concerned. 
Since the particular interest here is such a comparison between 
Illinois and other states presenting a similar situation, there is 
only one type of higher institution besides the normal school 
which is involved, namely, the university. According to reports 
submitted to the United States Bureau of Education the university 
and normal schools are the only institutions of higher grade in 
Illinois that are supported by public funds . 

In 22 of the states, the agricultural and mechanical 
college, originally endowed by federal land grants and receiving 
annual appropriations from federal funds for current expenses, is 
maintained as a department of the university instead of as a sep- 
arate institution. This is the case with Illinois. Since the 
types of courses offered have much to do with the cost of rnain-^ 
taining the institution, and since the amount paid by the individu- 
al usually varies with different courses as well as between dif- 
ferent institutions, specific comparisons with respect to the 
proportionate part of the cost which is borne by the individual 
should probably be made only with other state universities that 
are similarly organized. 

Since the size of the institution and the number of dif- 
ferent courses offered obviously have their infouence on costs of 
maintenance and general overhead, these factors have also been 
considered in selecting the institutions for v/hich comparisons are 
to be made. According to reports for 1920, eight of the twenty- 
two state universities v/ith which the agricultural and mechanical 
college is combined enrolled more than 3000 students. Of these, 
Cornell, in reality a private school but listed as a state insti- 
tution because of state and federal support, receives relatively 
larger percentages of its total income from permanent endowment 
and private contributions than do other universities. The appro- 
priations from public funds are doubtless much less than would be 
required by any such institution lacking the endowment and private 
support which this institution enjoys. Receipts from tuitions, 
on the other hand are more in accord with the total working income 
of the university, it is therefore clearly not comparable to the 
other universities of this group with respect to the relation of 
tuition receipts to the aggregate of funds derived from public 
sources, and is not included in the comparisons which are to be 
shown. 

The institutions selected are also similarly organized 
with regard to the number and kinds of courses offered. The most 
expensive courses in such institutions are the technical and pro- 
fessional courses. Of the schools considered none has less than 
four professional and eight technical courses. The largest number 
of courses in these two groups listed by any one institution is 19, 
and the smallest number is IS. All have the usual offerings in 



VI- 



fine arts and academic work, hence there are no differences in 
curricula that would invalidate the comparisons desired. 



TABLE XI. Total amount received from specified 
sources of revenue by seven state 
universities in 1920. (a) 

total receipts from 



Univer- 
sity 


student 
fees 

594211 


public 
funds 

2841936 


product . 
funds 

368821 


private 
funds 

943326 


miscel . 
sources 

1096170 


total 


California 


5844464 


Illinois 


353684 


3152576 


32451 


35400 


342138 


3916249 


Minnesota 


501420 


3140661 


109883 


89371 


567101 


4408436 


Missouri 


180806 


1175547 


94662 


41011 


243924 


1726950 


Nebraska 


155009 


1695650 


56998 




488199 


2395856 


Ohio 


223723 


2070933 


62355 


2065 


263948 


2622924 


Wisconsin 


716360 


2135424 


41533 


80228 


510095 


3483640 



The seven state universities on which comparisons are 
based are shown in Table XI together with facts concerning enroll- 
ment and revenues. The percentage of income derived from each of 
the principal sources is shown in Table XII. 

While the percentages given in Table XII indicate a 
somewhat definite tendency in these institutions with regard to 
the contribution which each of the principal sources of revenue 
makes in support of the institution, some marked variations are 
noted, California received much larger sums from private benefac- 
tions and productive funds than any of the other institutions, 
about twenty-two and one half percent of the total income being 
derived from the^e sources. Illinois, at the other extreme, re- 
ceived less than two percent from these two sources. The result 
of the different conditions noted with reference to these two in- 
stitutions is readily apparent in the percentage of total income 
which each received from public funds. These factors should there- 
fore be noted in making comparisons between institutions v/ith re- 
gard -co the students' share of the expense incurred* 



TABLE XII, Enrollment and percentage of total receipts 
derived from specified sources for seven 
state universities in 1920. 
enroll- 
ment (b) perce nt of to t al income from 
public 



product, private 



student 

fees " funds funds funds 

California 12630 10.17 ' 4'b . 59 6 .'32 16. lb 

Illinois 7935 9.03 80,48 0.82 0.89 

Minnesota 12182 11.36 71.20 2.47 2.02 

Missouri 4678 10.46 67.63 5.47 2.41 

Nebraska 5759 6.48 70.71 2,38 .00 

Ohio 7151 8.55 79.01 2.39 .78 

Wisconsin 7294 20.58 61.35 1.18 2.30 

median percentagel0.17 70.71 2,39 2,02 

(a) Prom data presented in Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 

(b) Exluding summer session. 



miscel , 

sources 

■ 18.77' ■ 

8.78 

12.95 

14.03 

20.43 

9.27 

14.59 

14.03 



48, 1920 



DOiias- biwow tteri: 



beilioeqa /not? br-vrso-yi j-;rrf,:r;Tr. fj-.-toT.lX SJ?iAT 









uoes dc iefc QiTJOoni ,ee«navei b 

. IT" ' ■■ ' •y'xi.c- ._ T ■ /f • on. 



•"■J corb^.- 









-as. ovvj yssf).. vi n^ii. 

-isricf foix/oris siiocjosi 
-s-x ilcJiw 3.-ioi:t.u::ti-?'5'- 
. .bo v 



'■qio- ■ -.lAT 





.rid- 




■■-■ nl aajisrrr 




. •: .^a^ron 




■■I -J 




■ -dB 




■Gb 




' ,; 5 3 




lo 




. .. ^ 3 


.■■i;9oe)i 


noes noirtw 


.r; b-'loc: '-'.1 o"co^ 



f fOTPf^ 



•:■..: i Xi^. .. j .:j,v 

r:^.0"^ CO. "rS .[V.i' 

0.:.:- 3o. .^i'-; 



,noxaa«i>a (c^) 



VI-3 

The extent of the variation in the relative amount of 
the cost of training in these institutions which the individual 
pays in the different states is, however, not to be overlooked. 
So far as general recognition is concerned, everjr institution in 
the list is regarded as affording opportunities of a superior 
type for those interested in and prepared for advanced education- 
al training. If the central tendency as indicated by the institu- 
tions here considered may be regarded as a normal assessment upon 
the individual, that is, if about ten percent of the total cost 
is a reasonable share for the individual to assume, some considera- 
tion should be given to the fact that students in one institution 
must pay twice that part of the total cost, while in another insti- 
tution only a little more than half the normal rate is assessed. 

If it is desired to compare somewhat more directly the 
relative share of the cost of higher education borne by the indi- 
vidual and by the state, the percentage of the amount derived from 
the two sources of fees and public funds alone may be noted. 
Table XIII presents these percentages for the same list of univer- 
sities in 1920, Here it will be noted that the position of the 
several schools with reference to the percentage paid by the indi- 
vidual is changed slightly, California shows the second highest 
percentage in this comparison, the amount paid by students being 
17,21 percent of the total derived from both student fees and 
public funds, while Table XII shows that student fees in this in- 
stitution constituted 10,17 percent of the total income from all 
sources which is less than that shown for three of the other in- 
stitutions. Minnesota records the second highest percentage when 
fees are compared with the total income, and is fourth in the list 
when fees and income from public sources alone are considered. 
Otherwise the institutions hold the same relative position in rank 
in the two comparisons. 

TABLE XIII. Relation of amount paid in student fees to 
total derived from fees and public funds. 

State percent from 

University student fees 

California 17,21 

Illinois 10.09 

Minnesota 13,07 

Missouri 13.35 

Nebraska 8,04 

Ohio «?»?? 

Wisconsin 25.11 

In the case of the normal schools, the selection of a 
comparable list involves a number of considerations. In the 
first place, there are three general types of normal schools 
that are supported by public funds, state schools, county or tovm- 
ship schools, and city normal schools. The standards and curricu- 
la maintained by these different kinds of schools are by no means 
uniform. The city normal, for example, is maintained for the 
purpose of training teachers for the local public school system. 
It is operated as a part of the city system, and its expenditures 
are largely determined by internal administrative policy. The 
county or township normal seeks primarily to recruit rural school 
teachers, and is usually meagerly supported. The state schools 
constitute by far the most important group so far as investment 
in the country at large is concerned, expenditures for this group 
in 1918 being more than 90 percent of the total for all three 
groups, (a) They are supported in the main by legislative ap- 
propriations, and while they vary greatly among the different 
states with regard to entrance requirements, academic standards, 

(a) Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 31, 1920. P. 5. 






liniea^f Is 

■■I fi ai 

■.^CJ^a 



-0 



''^. r*ri:* lot -s'"' 

-ii'ioliXr .-;rio ai leuJbjtv 

12, ti 

ii i£iuOo Sii-j 'io Siiiivii'i^i^ VitO-i ir ' tj; 

OiXQuq il;'.: "fv; 



•* BSS'I :ii;oi>uj-2 as bieq -itrtyoxrie to iioid-^ 
,obivj\ oslduq bdv sotA moil fesvjtis^'b f 






1. ./nif,u/.' 



ll££!£2.1. 






e e^viovn/ craxi eld^ieqrn; 



'oorfDS Xbiwi ".':f.f^::, 1 c.,' 



Qs'Xij:,^ ■■ 




O lec?< 




yd 


nr 


■\no; 


.-'t 



JOn^lJr; 



VI-4 

courses offered, salaries, fees, etc., the state normal in any 
given case represents a definite type of school for the state in 
which it is located. For these reasons the comparisons here 
drawn are between state schools only. 

The last detailed report concerning normal schools was 
issued by the Bureau of Education in 1919 and relates to expendi- 
tures for the year 1918. Of 170 state normal schools reporting, 
it is shown that approximately 90 percent of the income was de- 
rived from public funds. One hundred forty two of these schools 
reported tuition fees amounting to about Vs percent of the amount 
received from public appropriations. This percentage is by no 
means a constant one even among states having a relatively similar 
group of normal schools, as will be indicated by the data for the 
seven states given below, 

As has been suggested, these schools have no sources of 
income apart from fees and public appropriations that are of 
material aid in maintaining the schools. There are a very few ex- 
ceptions, where an endowment fund exists. Many of these schools, 
moreover, do not charge tuition fees at all. On the other hand, 
many of them maintain student dormitories, and the earnings from 
these may be used in defraying school expenses . In order to avoid 
the effect of selection of different types of institutions, the 
receipts of all schools charging tuition were analyzed and fees 
for services other than educational services were deducted, and a 
comparison made between only the receipts from fees and those from 
public funds. Table XIV shows the number of schools included in 
the report for each of the states selected, and the percentage 
that the receipts from fees for educational services constituted 
of the total amount derived from both fees and public funds. 

TABLE XIV. Relation of amount paid in student fees to 
total derived from both fees and public 
funds by the normal schools of seven states. 
(a) 



number of 


percent from 


schools 


student fees 


Illinois 5 


4,77 


Kansas 3 


11.15 


Massachusetts 8 


.46 


Michigan 4 


8.16 


Missouri 5 


23.66 


Texas 6 


6.92 


Wisconsin, 10 


6,78 



While the state normal schools of the group of states 
here represented are recognized as among the better schools of 
their class, it is at once apparent that there is great lack of 
uniformity with reference to the division of the cost of normal 
school training between the states and the students in attendance 
at these schools. If a larger group were considered and a number 
of the smaller schools included, the lack of any definite policy 
with reference to the cost of normal school training would be 
only the more decidedly indicated. 

(a) Data from Bureau of Education Bulletin Ho. 81, 1919, 






iir-or/oa lattnoa aaimsonoo i-tiC: 



joisq aiflT . erto.cJei'iqo'xqqs oil 
e i^nivrrl a&dflc^B gnomfi n'- • ■■ 
cf fcscfeojtbnl acJ Xliw as , 



1 BZBO novl'S 

........ ......I a J: Ji iioJtrfv/ 



.8IGI iBav' eriw lol ao-xiJ.-) 






lo qiuois 






aoid-ciiq-otqgjB o.i- Bsel xrioti :ti. 



moil 



-o n.I . aeensqx© Xoorfoa : .... ;^ ; a luu 
vXcnfi ©tow ■ •■ -t V ■ ■ - •'- ■• ' ■ 



VIX 







etsw 800 




S-: ;.i tr ^' 

bo&7j:!i ■ 


jlocii c. 


nut; ^.;:v? 

Ta3 isn 


I'ct Qd^ B'.voria 



Ob jievosiorrt. 
m&ai 'lo yhsjh 

J, 16 lo Bctq2eo0i 

f^O e!80.£vi9g lOl 

■'■■nm noaiiegmco 
sbnwl oiXcfwq 

091 oriel" Jsri;^ 

,v.^ XJ3:f--' ••■■■•'■ ■'- 



8801: d'^od ioo'sl 5ovi-'£3b 



/iroil dr 



;i.;oc'' 



01 



If 



YOiXoq 



.a lo >■ 



.fo9,t.' 



91 Si-. 

j .yx ;;;: ^\ Y:^i;--zolirJi; 

.JoJ galnle.i^ Xoorfos 

5 ii .aXoorfoa QBsdi c^e 

aXoorioa TeXXemB sriJ lo 

■'.1 o:} eonsiele'^c ricfiw 

blodh Q-xo::: srii vine 



VII-1 
SECTION VII 



The Distribution of Funds Among the Principal 
Functions of Expense » 



The generally accepted classifications of expendi- i 
tures in support of public elementary and high schools recognizes | 

eight principal functions or types of service for v;hich school i 
funds are ccmnonly expended. The following tabulation taken from 1 

the uniform report blank used by the state departments of educa- ; 

tion in reporting educational statistics to the United States ; 

Bureau of Education indicates the important items of expense "i 

v/hich are included under each of the eight divisions: ' 

I. Expenses of general control (overhead charges) ; 

!• school elections 

2, board of education and secretary's office • 

3. finance offices and accounts I 
4« offices in charge of buildings and supplies i 
5. legal services j 
6» operation and maintenance of office buildings j 
?♦ superintendents of schools and their offices ] 

8, enforcement of compulsory education, truancy lav;s, i 
and census enumeration. j 

9. other expenses of general control. 

II, Expenses of instruction. J 

1. salaries of supervisors of grades and subjects j 

2. other expenses of supervisors | 

3. salaries of principals 

4. other expenses of principals' offices 

5. other expenses of supervision 

6. salaries of teachers : 
. 7. text -books j 

8, supplies used in instruction 

9. other expenses of instruction. i 

III. Expenses of operation of school plant 'j 

i 

1. T.'ages of janitors and other employes ] 

2. fuel I 

3. v/ater ; 

4. light and pouer 

5. janitors' supplies : 

6. other expenses of operation ; 

IV. Expenses of maintenance of school plant I 

1. repair of, buildings and upkeep of grounds i 

2. repair and replacement of equipment ,: 

3. other expenses of maintenance j 



VII-2 
V. Expenses of auxiliary agencies & sundry activities 

1. libraries 

2. books for libraries 

3. promotion of health 

4. transportation of pupils 

5. care of children in institutions 

6. provision of lunches 

7. community lectures 

8. social centers 

9. recreation 

10. other agencies and activities 

11. pajmients to private schools 

12. payments to schools of other civil divisions 

VI. Expenses of fixed charges 

1. pensions 

2 . rent 

3. insurance 

4. taxes 

5. contributions, contingencies, etc. 

VII, Outlays (capital acquisition cSc construction) 

1 . land 

2. new buildings 

3. alteration of old buildings 

4. equipment of new buildings and grounds, exclusive 
of replacements 

VIII. Expenses of debt service 

1 , redemption of bonds 

2, payments to sinking funds 

3, redemption of short term loans 

4, payments of interest on indebtedness 

5, refunds (tax and tuition) 

Expenditures for the items comprised in the first six of 
these groups constitute the current or relatively constant ex- 
penses of the schools, as distinguished from capital outlays and 
the expenses of debt service v\/hich ordinarily result from the 
comparatively infrequent and irregular necessity of enlarging the 
school plant or adding to its equipment. Of the items included 
under expenses of debt service, interest on indebtedness alone 
represents an actual charge against the accounts of the school 
systems, the amounts of the payments to sinking funds and for re- 
demption of bonds or other loans having previously been reported 
as expenditures, largely under the heading of capital outlays. 
The item of interest, however, is an actual cost over and above 
the expenditures for which the indebtedness was incurred. It is 
for this reason frequently classified with other items of current 
operating expense, the total actual expenditures being grouped 
under the two classes of current expenses and outlays. 

According to the report of the Bureau of Education (a) for 
1920, the total pajmients for capital outlays for public schools 
in 1920 amounted to §153,542,852, The payments for current 
operating expenses including interest on indebtedness were 
$882,608,357. The expenditures for outlays thus amounted to 14.8 
per cent of the total cost of schools for that year. In 1918 the 
percentage of total expenditures in support of elementary and high 

(a) Statistics of state school systems, 1919-20 (in press). 



VII-3 

schools which was classified as outlay was 15.5, According to 

Burgesa (a) expenditures for outlays have absorbed annually from 

approximately 16 per cent to 19 per cent of all school funds since 
1890. 



TABLE XV. 



Distribution of expenditures of state school systems 
for current expenses, 1920. 



function 

general control 

instruction 

operation 

maintenance 

auxiliary agencies 

fixed charges 

interest 

total 



amount in 
millions of dollars 

36 
636 
115 

30 

36 

9 

21 



683 



The distribution of the current expenses of state school 
systems in 1920 is shown in Table XV. The percentage of the total 
current expenses which was devoted to each of the principal class- 
es of expenditures is shown for both 1920 and 1918 in Table XVI. 
The percentages for the same items v/hen the expenditures for capi- 
tal outlay are included are shown for the two years in Table XVII. 

TABLE XVI - Percentage distribution of current expenses of 

state school 3ystems, 1918 & 1920. 



function 


perc( 


sntage 




1918 


1920 


general control 


3.9 


4,1 


instruction 


69,0 


72.0 


operation 


17.3 


13.1 


maintenance 


3.2 


3.4 


auxiliary agencies 


3.3 


4.1 


fixed charges 


,9 


1,0 


interest 


2,3 


2«3 



From Table XVI it appears that about 70 per cent of the 
funds available for meeting the current expenses of the schools is 
required for items included under the head of instruction,. The 
general expenses involved in the administration of schools from 
year to year absorb about 30 per cent of all funds exclusive of 
capital outlays. 



(a) W. Randolph Burgess. Trends of School Costs . 
Russell Sage Foundation, 1920. P. 10b. 



New York: 






UO 10 'I 



'■1:> : iw rtOi tv 5 I'ooi':^: 



:jet!l 



3r..9- 



; *io noi^wcfiiJe: • ,VX ajQAT 



-3?; 
ex. 



lo-xcrnoo .; 

fro:;:?;; 



TO 



i£ 



ioocioi : ■ ■, :).fTam:;;f 

IccfocJ- Sri* ,VX eJ. 

.IVX QicfBi nx 61^1 Lite OS'^i rldocf 

• nivone. 



: 3 V~ ?j 

- ilUO 






:Oi^»nw'i 



I ?•■ 



30 isq or 



i 

' pifT. 



NToY W0M .acfao^ 



pe 
1918 


rcentag{ 


"1920 


3.3 




3.5 


58.2 




61,3 


14.7 




11.1 


2,7 




2.9 


2.8 




3.5 


.8 
2.0 




.9 
2.0 



VII-4 
TABLE XVII. Percentage distribution of total expenditures 
of state school systems, 1918 and 1920. 



function 

general control 

instruction 

operation 

maintenance 

auxiliary agencies 

fixed charges 

interest 

capital outlay 15.5 14.8 

lH/hen the total expenditures are considered, approximately 
60 per cent of all funds are required for the expenses of instruc- 
tion and about 15 per cent for capital outlays. According to data 
contained in the report of the state superintendent of public in- 
struction in Illinois, these percentages for this state in 1920 
were 60.3 and 14.9, respectively. The increase shown in Tables _ 
XVI and XVII in the percentage of expenditures for instruction in 
1920 over that for 1918 is due principally to the general increase 
in teachers' salaries during that period. 

The reports for state school systems include both city and 
rural schools and the percentages shown in the above tables in- 
dicate the tendency when the expenses of all schools are taken 
together. When city school systems alone are considered and the 
cities are classified according to size there is seen to be a 
difference in the proportionate part of school expenses devoted 
to instruction. Table XVIII shows the percentage distribution of 
current expenses for 225 cities in 1918. These cities include 
five population groups of 45 cities each. Group 1 includes 
cities of over 10,000 inhabitants. Group 11 cities of from 
30,000 to 100,000, group 111 those from 10,000 to 30,000, group 
IV those from 5,000 to 10,000 and group V those between 2,500 
and 5,000, 

While the expenses of city school systems increased greatly 
in the period from 1910 to 1920, the division of funds between 
the costs of instruction and other current expenses for schools 
has remained relatively constant. A study (a) based upon data 
assembled by agents of the Bureau of Census in 1910 and relating 
to school expenditures in 1909 shows that in 103 cities of 30,000 
and more inhabitants 74.5 per cent of the current expenses of 
schools was used to defray the costs of instruction. A study (b) 
recently reported and based upon reports from 375 cities of more 
than 8000 inhabitants for 1920 shows that 74.3 per cent of _ the 
current expenses of these school systems went for instruction. 

(a) Harlan Updegroff, A Study of Expenses of City School Systems , 
Bureau of Education Bulletin No, 5, 1912, 

(b) Know and Help Your Schools. Third Report . New York: 
American City Bureau, iy21. P. 2b. 



W9W . 



,"3^ 



7-5a 



PIG. 10. Percentage of total expenditures for 

common schools devoted to instruction and outlays, 
1918 & 1920. 



Instruction 



Other 

current 

expenses 



Outlays 



19 18 



19 2 



101 ti^iiUitbn&qxB LaioS 1o ©ajsineoif 
tsx&liur t&Qwif-. ^iov^b Gloorfoa nomaoo 






Q I 



VII-5 



TABLE XVIII. Percentage distribution of current school 
expenses of 225 cities grouped according 
to size, 1918. (a) 





gen'l 
con- 
trol 

I -4.0 


instr- 
unct- 
ion- 

Vb.O' 


oper- 
ation 


maint- 
enance . 


auxil . 

agencies 

2.0 


fixed 
charges 

& 
int. 


Group 


10.6 


4.1 


4.3 


Group 


II -3.3 


69.2 


12,9 


5.2 


1.6 


7.8 


Group 


III -4.5 


69.7 


13.0 


4.4 


1.3 


7.1 


Group 


IV -5.2 


65.9 


13.7 


4,4 


2.0 


8.8 


Group 


V -6.8 


65.5 


14.1 


3.6 


2.0 


8.0 



Where it is possible to separate high school and elementary 
school expenditures it is found that the proportion of total 
costs devoted to the expenses of instruction is approximately the 
same in the two types of schools. Detailed reports concerning 
nine state systems for 1918 show that 62.9 per cent of all ele- 
mentary school costs v/ere incurred for instruction, while this 
percentage for the high schools was 51,7. There is, hov/ever, a 
greater difference in the proportionate amounts spent for outlays. 
Computations based on the same reports show an expenditure for 
outlays of 17.1 per cent of all high school funds and only 11.2 
per cent in the case of the elementary schools. 

Reports of expenditures for higher educational institutions 
do not follow exactly the same classification as that adopted for 
common schools. Besides the fact that the activities of the insti- 
tutions are different, the funds of higher institutions are derived 
from different sources and the accounting for any given institution 
is adapted to the type of school and its sources of income. One 
result of this fact is a greater variety of accounting systems and 
a general lack of uniforraity in the type of report that is made. 
The central agencies which collect statistics of higher schools 
report fiscal statistics for these institutions in terms of in- 
come received rather than in the form of classified expenditures. 
The reports issued by the Bureau of Education make some analysis 
of the state appropriations for higher education, indicating 
separately the amounts alloted for current expenses and for out- 
lays. Thus the report for 1921 shows that the income of all state 
colleges and universities amounted to 98 million dollars. The 
legislative appropriations for buildings and new equipment amount- 
ed to nine millions, or a little more than nine per cent of the 
total income. In 1920 the legislative appropriations for build- 
ings amounted, to about eight per cent of the income of the insti- 
tutions reporting. This, however, can not be taken as an exact 
estimate of the division of funds for these institutions between 
current expense and capital outlays because considerable sums are 
frequently received from private benefactions for building pur- 
poses, and other income may be so employed. 

Reports for individual institutions of course specify the 
amount expended for capital acquisition and construction, usually 
for a one-year or a two-year period. In considering a single in- 
stitution, however, it must be understood that the requirements 
of the institution in the way of new buildings and equipment for 

(a) Computed from data presented in Bureau of Education Bulletin 
No. 24, 1920. 



•Jt>' lo sai 



'.olilo aS5 1c 



eoneno 



-not 



^sanocf: 



.'.CSV 19. 



icrwijtd-arxjt Xswbivibrri tol ecfioq& 

v/Ct S '10 



moil; bGim, 



VII-6 

a given year or "biennium may not be representative of such require- 
ments from year to year. The division of expenditures between 
capital and other accounts over a period of years is obviously the 
most significant measure of the relation of outlays to current 
expenses. Detailed reports of this type which represent a uniform 
accounting over a period of years are not readily obtainable. 
Such data for the University of Illinois are included in the report 
of the comptroller for the year ending June 30, 1920. According 
to this report the percentage of total expenditures devoted to 
capital outlays for the seven-year period ending June 30, 1920 was 
15.1. The percentage devoted to outlays in any one year varied 
from 26,4 in 1914 to 8.7 in 1920. 

Detailed reports concerning expenditures for state high- 
er institutions are to be found in some of the surveys of these 
institutions. The classifications employed in the Iowa (a) and 
Washington (b) surveys indicate rather clearly the principal t^'^pes 
of expenditures in the institutions considered. Each of these 
states maintains a university and an agricultural and mechanical 
college under state control. Including v^ith salaries the reported 
expenditures for educational supplies and equipment other than 
that charged to outlay accounts, this total is taken as the cost 
of instruction proper. Since executive officers of higher insti- 
tutions are generally not regarded as supervisors of instruction, 
their salaries are reported as expenses of overhead. Costs of 
maintenance and operation are likewise classed as overhead, the 
expenditures being distributed among the three functions of out- 
lays, instruction, and overhead, 

TABLE XIX, Percentage distribution of expenditures 
for state higher institutions in Iov;a 
and Washington, 

Universities A & M Colleges 

function Iowa Wash . Iowa Wa sh ■ 

outlays 23.0 22.2 30,0 38.1 

instruction 48,4 56,5 45.3 41.6 

other expenses 28.5 21.1 24,6 20.2 

The reports mentioned include data for the tv;o years of 
1914 and 1915 in the case of the Iowa institutions and estimates 
for 1917-19 for those of Washington, In order to more evenly dis- 
tribute the cost of buildings and new equipment, the average annual 
expenditures for the periods stated are taken instead of the data 
for a single year. Table XIX shows the percentage of total expend- 
itures devoted to each of the three functions for the two types of 
schools separately, these being based upon the average expenditures 
for two years as stated. 

The relation of instruction costs to other costs may be 
shown as in Table XIX. It is perhaps more significant to note the 
ratio of the cost of instruction to the total amount of the current 
expenses. Such ratio probably furnishes the best basis of compari- 
son of the distribution of expenditures in different institutions. 
However, any such comparisons should be made with caution even 
between institutions of similar type because of the lack of 

(a) State Higher Educational Institutions of Iowa. Bureau of 
Education Bulletin No. 19, 1916. — 

(b) T he Educational Institutions of the State of Washington . Bureau 
ol' Education Bulletin. Nor . 26, 1916. 



VII-7 

uniform methods of accounting. In the University of Illinois, 
according to the 1920 report referred to, the percentage of total 
current expenses classified as the cost of teaching and research 
was 57.7. Including the cost of certain special investigations 
which constitute the rather regular research activities, - the 
agricultural and engineering experiment stations, the Bureau of 
Educational Research, etc. - this percentage becomes 69.8. In 
1914 the corresponding percentages were 63.8 and 78,7, respective- 
ly. The report of the Survey of the University of Arizona (a) 
presents a comparable classification of expenditures of that in- 
stitution for 1915 and 1916. The percentage of total current ex- 
penses represented by instruction costs was 47,4 in 1915 and 43.9 
in 1916. A survey just completed of the higher institutions of 
Kansas shows that the cost of instruction and research in the 
state university was 40,0 per cent of all current expenses in 1921. 
In the agricultural and mechanical college 54.3 per cent of the 
current expenses went for instruction and research (b). A recent 
report of expenditures by the University of Washington (c) shows 
that 44,71 per cent of the current expenses in 1921 was classified 
as instruction costs . 

The data presented v;ith reference to instruction indi- 
cate considerable variation in the proportionate amount of avail- 
able funds devoted to instruction and research as compared with 
other current expenses even where comparable records exist. Such 
variation is to be expected from the fact that the activities of 
the different institutions are by no means uniform. Moreover, 
those activities which are common to all the institutions for 
which reports are given are variously emphasized. 

To distinguish the costs of instruction in classical 
subjects from the costs of technical instruction for any given 
higher institution requires an analysis of all items of current 
expense and more detailed records than are usually compiled for 
general distribution. Such details of expenditures are included 
in the report of the survey of the Washington institutions. Forty- 
two separate courses are reported on as to salary costs of instruc- 
tion. If these are grouped so as to include all courses which 
are primarily vocational under one class, it is found that the 
salary costs of instruction in the two higher state institutions 
for these courses is 44.5 per cent of these costs for all instruc- 
tion. This is based upon a two years' budget, and probably 
represents as accurate distribution as can be made of such costs 
in higher institutions. The Iowa study does not give similar data 
for the A. & M. College, but shows approximately the same division 
for the two types of courses in the university as vi/as shown for 
Washington, the data for 1915 showing 45 per cent of the salary 
costs of instruction as being charged to the vocational group. In 
1914 this percentage was 44.7.. A similar analysis of instruction 
costs in the University of Washington in the 1921 report referred 
to shows that 53.5 per cent of the salary costs of instruction 
was expended for courses in liberal arts and science groups. On 
the basis of these reports, it appears that about 55 per cent of 
the salaries of instructors in higher schools are at present ab- 
sorbed in teaching the academic or classical courses. 

(a) Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 19, 1917. P, 162, 

(b) Data from manuscript of report of Survey made under the direc- 
tion of the Bureau of Education. 

(c) The Third Biennial Report of the Joint B oard of Higher 
Curricula . Seattle: The Joint Board of Higher Curricula , 
Edwin B. Stevens, Secretary, 1922. P. 51. 



VII-8 

The salary costs probably do not indicate exactly the 
difference in the costs of the two types of training, as the 
materials of insti-'uction and the equipment used in teaching is 
much more expensive for some courses than for others. But since 
the salary costs amount to from two-thirds to three-fourths of 
the total cost of most departments, the actual expenses of the 
group of departments included in the vocational group would like- 
ly bear approximately the same ratio to the total costs if it 
were possible to determine the total costs of the various depart- 
ments precisely. 



iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwn 

021 289 863 6 



